This should be fun…

Les - this is your board, so i’ll not berate you for purposefully missing the point; if you honestly think that i am against two people (whether of the same sex or not) receiving due priviledge or rights, then you are either not reading the intent behind my posts, or you are simply hostile to any type of conversation that might generate a response that is contrary to your opinion.

That sounds pretty much like a good berating right there. It also insinuates that I intentionally ignored the point you’re trying to raise, which I don’t feel that I did. If I were hostile to any conversation that might generate a response that is contrary to my opinion then I’d spend a lot more time making use of the delete option and would have probably just deleted your response as you had asked. Nor did I say anything about you being opposed to or in favor of same-sex marriages. I did comment on both your insistence that the “slippery slope” argument is a valid consideration and your suggestion that marriage as it currently stands isn’t already a mockery of itself.

Your reply, which you think is ‘good’, is in fact, rather weak. You implied that I was under the impression that two people of the same sex getting married is a mockery of marriage. Perhaps if you actually read the post before replying, the answers you give would respond to the statement in an appropriate manner. I will repeat what I said in an earlier post. “I, quite frankly, could care less what homosexuals do, nor do I fear their influence.”

I read and understood your post just fine and I addressed your point that a change allowing same-sex marriages could start us down a slippery slope to a point where marriage is reduced to being a mockery of itself. I argue that in many ways it already is. You also seem to be implying that there aren’t already purely monetary reasons for people to get married or that it doesn’t occur for said reason. I believe your exact statement was “IF it were advantageous in some fashion, say monetarily, to be ‘married’, and it was legal to name anything as the partner, then it seems to me, the smart thing to do would be to engage in such a charade.” There are already numerous advantages to being married, including monetary reasons, that have prompted plenty of heterosexual marriages to take place that are largely charades. The only real difference is that only people willing to marry people of the opposite sex can participate is said charades.

So, Les. How do you define marriage? In fact, Les, why should we even define marriage? Isn’t the very act of the GOVERNMENT identifying a difference between two people and providing for any kind of benefit to said person(s), an act of discrimination?

Marriage to me is both a social contract between two people and the ultimate expression of commitment you can make to another person. Pretty simple really.

The question of why is a good one and I can see possible argument both for and against government involvement in defining it. I can also see how it could be considered a form of discrimination as well. I honestly haven’t done a lot of studying on the pros and cons of government promoting the concept of marriage for the simple reason that I never thought to question it before. My interest is piqued, however, so I’ll be looking into this more closely.

Your opinions are not based on principles - they are based on situations. Situational ethics doesn’t work, because you don’t always know the situation. The idea that we should ‘just focus on the issue of today and worry about what happens tomorrow as a result’ is both irresponsible and unrealistic.

Thank you for dictating to me what my opinions are based on. Yes, I tend to be of the mindset that you can’t always apply black and white thinking to a world that is shades of gray ethically speaking. Your authoritative insistence that situational ethics don’t work at all is not borne out by my experiences. Without considering the situation involved in any particular event we end up with the idiotic “zero tolerance” rules and laws that get kids kicked out of school for having a pair of fingernail clippers in their pocket. The whole point of the Judicial branch is to try to apply the black and white thinking of most laws to the situations involved in each and every court case that comes before them. That’s why they’re called JUDGES.

I never said we shouldn’t consider what may come tomorrow, I said the slippery slope argument is never a valid argument to make. It’s clear you don’t have a clue what a “slippery slope” fallacy is so allow me to enlighten you:

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
   

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Now allow me to quote your own statement that shows just how perfectly you’ve managed to express this fallacy: “If the definition of marriage is changed, and because of that change, rights of marriage extended to whatever constitutes that marriage, abuse will inevitably creep in.”

Damn, that’s pretty much a text-book example right there. If you now wish to debate whether or not the “slippery slope” fallacy should be considered a fallacy I’d love to hear what you have to offer in support of such a concept.

In addition, your open hostility and mocking of religion exposes arrogance and ignorance on par with the fanatics and extremists you so detest.

I don’t deny that I can be hostile toward religion and mocking of it as well. Theres a lot about religion that makes it worthy of being mocked in my mind. I also confess to the idea that I can be arrogant and even ignorant on some subjects, but I would argue that I am far from the fanatics and extremists that I detest. Still, this is your opinion you’re expressing and you’re more than welcome to it. Whether you consider me on par with those I oppose is of little real concern to me. I hold no illusions of having everyone think I’m wonderful.

I have read a significant portion of your posts and opinions; by and large they are lucid and well articulated, albeit with a touch of bias (heh).

Of course they have a touch of bias. I’d be lying to claim otherwise as would anyone. When I’m expressing my personal opinions then my comments are practically brimming with my bias and I find it silly to think it should be otherwise. When dealing with facts I try to be as objective as I can, but I am only human and I make no apologies for that.

If you only wish to preach to the choir, by all means, continue interpreting and espousing uninformed positions, flogging those who disagree with you.

Again I would debate how uninformed my opinions actually are. Certainly they’re no worse than anything you’ve put forth so far and arguably better than most. I do make a point of searching out and reading up on opposing viewpoints before I comment. I even admitted in this very response that I hadn’t considered the “why” of defining marriage much. I’m willing to own up to my ignorance which is more than most do.

I for one, had looked forward to a realistic discussion - wholesale rejection of a position that half of the country holds shows significant lack of thought or insite into said discussion.

If half the country holds a position based solely on a fallacy than there is nothing wrong with wholesale rejection of that position. Just because half the country is drawing their conclusions from a stupid argument doesn’t make that argument any less stupid or any more valid.

You may as well say that I lack “insite” if I reject wholesale the viewpoint shared by half the country that claims everyone should drink their own urine. You’re perfectly within your rights to base your conclusions on a fallacy and to drink your own urine if you think it’s appropriate, but I’m still going to point out how idiotic I think you are for it.

If you want a realistic discussion then make realistic assertions that aren’t based on stupid fallacies. It would also probably serve you well to ensure that your own ignorance isn’t showing before you try to tell me about how ignorant I happen to be.

Randall, it’s late and I should be in bed. I’ll address your response later.

randall, I believe I misjudged you. If you remember, I said something to the effect of you didn’t seem to be one who throws judgment from some perceived moral high ground. . . not only do I think I was wrong about that, but I have also noticed the tone and flow of your posts has changed from earlier posts. Something about it just doesn’t feel right. It struck me as if your earlier posts were something of fish hooks. It could just be me, but I am sure if there is this something I can’t quite put my finger on, the bigger dawgs will smell it and hunt it down.

covie...well brock thinks that i am on here fishin in hopes of catching this big atheist so i can run and tell my church buddies about it.  i can understand how he or anyone else would feel that way.  and i can see how i or anyother Christian could appear or actually be judgemental. I am only trying to learn some things on this site just to help me (a believer) be able to relate with a non-believer...(not necessarily on this site, but those i come in contact with in everyday life) i feel that christians have a lot of mis-conceptions about atheist, and honestly i think atheist lump all christians in the same boat too....anyway if we happen to converse via posting i hope that i do not come across to you as condeming, judgemental etc.,,, but i have already told brock, that if the big dawgs as you say think i have ill motives then i will take my posts somewhere else....it is hard though because of my beliefs not to come across as confrontational....i actually get into trouble about that at lot at my church… when i say something against a politician or political party there are those in my church that feel that have to let me know that i am “getting out of hand”, or believe it or not i even face the persecution from my own “christian” friends that i take things a little too seriously…

but i have learned some things from this site, that is my intent from being here, but sometimes can not help but speak what I believe the truth.  if i dont believe what i believe to actually be the truth, then i am a wuss anyway…

but i will let you know that i have no aim in converting you, or anyone else.  i am actually not qualified in the area of apologetics, debate, science or history enough to compete with most of you anyway....but i do have beliefs that believe it or not that i actually live by....

I must apologize, I am going back to the direct responses to my original post. There’s been some other information since then that I’ll jump into later.

Well, I know I’m not a scholar (as some have so politely pointed out). But I have actually read The Republic as part of a course in Philosophy. It will be difficult, since due to the Socratic Method, quotes are near impossible to use to convey my points, and I haven’t the qualifications to oppose some information grabbed off the net in which some authority has interpreted Plato for you. Wait, isn’t my post something you just read on the net? Well, anyway, it’s been sometime (20 years?) since I read it as well. But I have in my notes from that class, that our general conclusion was that Plato believed that right (or justice, the translation is not perfect) was that which everyone could do, and the state would be maintained. To give ground, he also could reasonably be interpreted to have written that right is a fulfillment of what one was meant to be. I know I’ll get beat to a pulp on that last concession, but only by those who don’t take time to read the book and understand what Plato means by it. It’s not as liberating as you might think. And taken in the context of evolution, you might find it very difficult to defend homosexuality. Certainly in my first interpretation, If everyone had a same sex “marriage”, the state would come to an end in a single generation. This of course assumes you are following the virtue of honesty to your commitment (which is also part of Plato’s idea of just).

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on retorting the comment about Plato being in favor of a homosexual male army. This is a popular myth, and I’d like to point out that it’s almost directly contrary to what Plato writes in chapter 15 of The Rupublic that women would be equal in all ways to men and serve in all capacities side by side with them, including in the army. I’m not here to defend Plato in any event. Only to point out that in his system of philosophy, same sex “marriage” would be wrong. I think nowiser’s post shed some light on the whole thing. Plato went hither and yon on the subject a bit. But overall, he would have objected to same sex “marriage”, but might have turned a blind eye to homosexual behavior in some cases. Even then, he regarded it as a giving in to passions (something he didn’t think was a good thing, reason should rule).

Lastly, there are 2 other pieces of that question. One is a part in which Glaucon, who is gay, tries to defend his choices against Socrates and fails. The second is that throughout the work Socrates consistently describes unnatural sex as evil, and does not refer to homosexual bonds at all in his discussion of appropriate relationships among his perfect society (and he goes into great detail on this point).

I must admit that Les calls me on it directly, I reformed (or redefined) the statement in order to take a cheap shot. I got a great deal of amusement out of it, but it was poor form. I was wrong to do it. However, if one takes the philosophy that right is to do what will benefit mankind if everyone does it, and wrong conversely condemns mankind when everyone does it, then same sex “marriage” is wrong. That’s my first response to his challenge.

In response to my translation of scripture, I must say that I am also not a scholar of languages. I do not speak or write Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. However, none of the translations I use are English to English translations (or paraphrases). The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Published in the late 1800’s, the DNT, a literal translation by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) provided a more accurate rendering of the original languages than translations of the day. The Bible text designated YLT is from the 1898 Young’s Literal Translation by Robert Young who also compiled Young’s Analytical Concordance. This is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.

I like the NIV because they focused on a phrase for phrase translation, so that idioms would come across to be meaningful in modern English. To put that another way, your literal translation of one specific word may be quite misleading, and the NIV is likely to be more accurate. For example, If I were to say ‘someone was light in their loafers’, translators in the distant future might take my meaning to be that ‘the person was a ray of sunshine when they wore comfortable shoes’ when making a word for word translation.  However, to shore up the other end, I used DNT and YLT to show that other people, that are scholars of languages, believe that even the word for word translation would be an indictment against homosexuality.

But don’t just take their word for it, here’s what other linguists have to say about the 2 terms from 1Cor 6:9:

1)This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. malakov” 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for malakoiv in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here.

2) On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ajrsenokoivth” states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. malakov"…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ajrsenokoivth” in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakov”, the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

But hey, who knows, it’s all Greek to me. I’m just taking hundreds of well qualified experts at their word.

As for speakers’ other “information” concerning Christianity, I think he’s been reading too much webinfo. There are bits and pieces of truth buried in his post, but I’ll save the discrediting of the other pieces for another time.

I’ve got some simple ideas, David. Let’s throw out your Bibles altogether. Let’s say they are very possibly works of fiction or defiled fact and only mythically relevant. Let’s admit that you won’t find enough agreement between them and by contrasting any of them to other ancient writings and modern multiple interpretations to justify calling homosexuality a perversion.

Let’s say that homosexuality is a normal expression both in the human and animal sense. If homosexuals have always been around, and it seems they have, lets just assume it’s a natural part of life on earth. Let’s further assume there will always be more than enough breeders to continue the human race.

Or let’s not…

Either way, I’ll probably still say “We’re here, we’re queer, get ab-used to it”!

Plato believed that right (or justice, the translation is not perfect) was that which everyone could do, and the state would be maintained. To give ground, he also could reasonably be interpreted to have written that right is a fulfillment of what one was meant to be.

If everyone had a same sex “marriage”, the state would come to an end in a single generation

It seems that you’re implying that homosexuality is “wrong” by Platonic standards because if “everyone did it the State could not be maintained.”

But the proposition is easily reversed, becoming “right” by Platonic standards if you assert that what everybody should do is
to “express their natural sexuality within the confines of a paired social unit.”
By that standard, homosexual unions are far more “right,” and beneficial to society, than homosexual relations without the sanction of legal pairing.

But all of this is quibbling.  Assuming for the sake of argument that homosexuality, and homosexual marriages, were actually damaging to American society.  We don’t make it illegal, in America, to do things that are harmful to society.  There are plenty of perfectly legal activities that are harmful to society, but they are tolerated because they are not an imminent threat to the entire structure.  Most of those “harmful” activities are legally tolerated primarily because their suppression would involve the circumscription of individual liberties.  And we constantly mediate, as a society, between the conflicting interests of the society and the individual.

All that being said, I have yet to see anybody make a compelling case that homosexual marriage actually threatens the fabric of our social structure.

Also, I meant to post a link, earlier, about the benefits that cannot be accrued through contractual law.  I don’t think there’s any question that most of those benefits relate to money-- ie: tax law, social security, death benefits, etc.  And I wouldn’t have an objection to the Govt simply throwing its hands up and saying “fine,” no more tax incentives, etc., for any families-- gay or straight.

But that’s not going to happen.  Ever.  So the next most “fair” thing to do is to acknowledge gay marriage . . . 

The link for a few benefits that are not available through contractual law are on GLAD’s website.  They don’t give you a complete list, which would be nice, but they do give you a few examples.

http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/Marriage_Myths.shtml

(By the way, what’s the html tag that makes links active/clickable?)

The other point is that Federal DOM legislation means that even if one state provides a completely equivalent “separate but equal” type of contractual arrangement, other states are not required to observe it.  Which kind of sucks if you’re gay, and you and your partner have to move to another state to care for family, pursue your education, or find work.

As for whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality, I’ve never really cared.  It’s tribal law that’s thousands of years old.  Laws SHOULD change.  Ya’ll can scrap about Biblical transmission and interpretation issues as much as you want-- I’ll abstain, because I believe it’s completely irrelevant to how we should determine social policy.

(url=http://site.com/folder/) ... (/url)

*replace the () with []

Or you can use the link button right above the comments box.

Holy link button, Batman!

Good thing it wasn’t a snake. . .

Alas, the Link button only works in IE. Someday I’ll get around to making it work with Mozilla as well.

All points well taken, nowiser. But I wasn’t arguing whether the Bible was relevant (I think we know where we all stand on that one) but I’d be glad to. I was refuting speaker’s comment

NOWHERE in the Bible does it ACTUALLY, if translated correctly, condemn homosexuality, nowhere.

Nor whether homosexual relations were a benefit to society (another point I think we all know where everyone stands, and is being debated on another thread). I was answering Les’s challenge. Which I think I have successfully done. I.E. if I take the secular stance that good is that which we can all participate in and mankind will survive, wrong is that which if we all participated in it mankind would not survive, then homosexual “marriage” is wrong.

Brock, If the Bible is a myth, how come all the cities and all the people and all their actions described in the Bible are all corroborated by every other ancient text we have? And in point of fact has more evidence to it’s authenticity than any other ancient text? Further, there are no known texts from antiquity that are contrary to the Bible, or indicate that it was mythological. So either we need to throw out all ancient works and histories, since they must all be myths, or we have to accept that the Bible is also not a myth. Now, you can debate that Jesus was not actually the son of God, but you can’t produce any evidence contrary to the fact that he existed and did the things the Bible says he did. So stop spreading lies that you probably already know are not true. Or shall I just give up responding to you since you refuse to deal in truth? I think the reality is that you are prejudiced against the Bible because it speaks out against your lifestyle (the very point I’m defending here) and if it’s true, you face some difficult consequences. However, taking a position that is blatantly false does not help your argument.

Brock, If the Bible is a myth, how come all the cities and all the people and all their actions described in the Bible are all corroborated by every other ancient text we have? And in point of fact has more evidence to it’s authenticity than any other ancient text?

I guess then that any fictional tale set in real surroundings must be fact.

Now, you can debate that Jesus was not actually the son of God, but you can’t produce any evidence contrary to the fact that he existed and did the things the Bible says he did.

Nor do you have anything other than the bible to prove he did what is claimed in the bible.

Based on your logic, I can now claim that Robin Hood was a real person. The places in the story are all real, and there aren’t any writings at the same time he existed showing he didn’t exist.

I.E. if I take the secular stance that good is that which we can all participate in and mankind will survive, wrong is that which if we all participated in it mankind would not survive, then homosexual “marriage” is wrong.

How did you jump from “Plato” to “secular” in one fell-swoop? Based on Plato’s definitions of right and wrong you may be correct in your reasoning, but I don’t recall where it’s said that Plato’s reasoning is the basis for all secular definitions of right and wrong.

Brock, If the Bible is a myth, how come all the cities and all the people and all their actions described in the Bible are all corroborated by every other ancient text we have? And in point of fact has more evidence to it’s authenticity than any other ancient text?

This is news to me, care to cite something to support this assertion? Most of the attempts I’ve ever seen to back up the Bible as a historical document are dubious at best and the debate is still wide open on how much, if any, of the Bible can be considered historically accurate, let alone whether anything outside of it verifies Jesus ever existed. If you have something that seems conclusive I’d love to look into it.

Further, there are no known texts from antiquity that are contrary to the Bible, or indicate that it was mythological. So either we need to throw out all ancient works and histories, since they must all be myths, or we have to accept that the Bible is also not a myth.

Again, an assertion that you don’t bother to provide any supporting references for. Lack of ancient texts contrary to the Bible isn’t proof or disproof of the Bible’s accuracy nor is the lack of any texts that indicate whether it’s mythological proof in support or against that idea either. If credible outside references to events documented in the Bible could be located then this would give some weight to the idea it’s historically accurate. So far any outside references found are questionable and inconclusive and some archological finds seem to contradict some of the events described in the Bible.

But again, if you have proof to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

Now, you can debate that Jesus was not actually the son of God, but you can’t produce any evidence contrary to the fact that he existed and did the things the Bible says he did.

Outside of the Bible I seriously doubt you can provide any evidence in support of his existence and deeds. Until you’ve managed to prove the Bible is an accurate record of historical events then Brock is completely justified in discounting it as mythology.

So stop spreading lies that you probably already know are not true. Or shall I just give up responding to you since you refuse to deal in truth?

Strong words from someone who likes to make claims of the truth without providing supporting references.

David,

Thanks for the link.  I’m essentially a lazy man, and this area is certainly not my forte, but Xiridou’s abstract of her data collection techniques is available on-line, and her abstract alone raises questions-- particularly since she used an outside source for data, and that source “preselected” participants on the basis that they must have had at least two partner within the prior six months.

In other words, the reason there was a high average of non-monagamous relationships in this study is because *any monogamous relationship would have been selected OUT of the study*

You don’t have to be a Calculus whiz to see how that will immediately skew the “promiscuity mean” upward.

Xiridou’s work is entirely legit, but its focus is on tracking AIDS transmission vectors, not establishing social policy.  So its use in this particular debate is questionable.

Damnit, I didn’t get the link button to work.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/000763.html

or let’s try it one more time.

href="http://www.amptoons.com/blog/000763.html">

Les, I don’t know if it makes a difference or not, but opening tag created by the link button is leaving out the last little “>“ squiggle.  You have to insert it manually to make it work.

Or my computer could just be fucking with me as a prelude to its attempt to conquer the world

On a completely separate note, I don’t think you responded to my point about “rightness” in Platonic terms.  Even if you forget, for the moment, that Plato is essentially appealing to a transcendental ideal in his establishment of what is “good” (an idea that I dispute whether it comes from Plato or CS Lewis), your definition of homosexuality as being “wrong” because it doesn’t fall into the category of “that which we can all participate in, etc.” is flawed.

Homosexuality is a personal sexual preference that does not involve non-consenting adults.

If we all pursue “that” (our personal sexual preferences that do not involve non-consenting adults), then it does not lead to the extinction of humankind, and is, according to your definition, in line with what would be considered Platonically “good.”

Firstly, I think David is fond of clouding issues with emotional and theological red herrings.

David, I’m not ashamed of my lifestyle, nor is my lifestyle any more dangerous to society than a typical heterosexual’s. Actually I’m less promiscuous than many of my straight friends. I have no diseases or mental delusions, but your other arguments are so ragged that maybe it will help your cause to attack my personal sexuality or my safety due to it. If everybody who could procreate did, it would soon enough lead to the destruction of humankind, too. Homosexuality is simply one of several ways to avoid overpopulation of the species. Try telling a 14-year-old girl who isn’t procreating, even though she‘s able to, that she’s contributing to the downfall of a threatened society. Is homosexuality really so appealing to you David that you can see every person adopting the lifestyle? 

Brock, If the Bible is a myth, how come all the cities and all the people and all their actions described in the Bible are all corroborated by every other ancient text we have? And in point of fact has more evidence to it’s authenticity than any other ancient text?

I think you’ve made the most outlandish statement I’ve ever read here! If all the cities and all the people and all their actions described in the Bible are all corroborated by every other ancient text we have, I’m defeated (or at the very least; wounded). But I say again that the Bible is a collection of myths, which aren’t even as good (in my mind) as myths written before or some written after it. I don’t want to repeat other posts, to this site alone, that cite previous creation myths and how they mirror the Christ myth and also conversely describe events and outcomes. Myths often utilize real settings and purposes so that we’re able to relate to them and learn societal lessons from them. I shouldn’t have to point out that there any many mistakes in the Bible i.e. contrary descriptions of the same event, person or place. If you are a halfway decent Biblical scholar you should be well aware of the Bible’s many inconsistencies. But I doubt that you care to look at the Bible impartially. You’ll look for the first source, description, biased work, etc that might further your argument and come running here with it, expecting us to forego all we’ve devised and discovered through honest consideration of the validity of the Bible as a divine work.

As Johnny Cochran said: If it doesn’t fit; you must acquit!”

Does anybody ever wish there was one book written, that could answer all of life’s mistakes, questions, misunderstandings, hopes, dreams, riddles etc? Then we could show it to those who don’t want to think for themselves and say here, this is what you should know! This is what you should value! This is what you should live by!

Yeah, me neither. They tried that with the Bible and look how feeble-minded and scared IT made people. It’s probably better just to wonder.

Dave, here are quotes from two of your posts

I was answering Les’s challenge. Which I think I have successfully done. I.E. if I take the secular stance that good is that which we can all participate in and mankind will survive, wrong is that which if we all participated in it mankind would not survive, then homosexual “marriage” is wrong.

Other than to make a rhetorical point, why would one have to take that particular secular stance? Why not posit something more up to date that would ask about an assessment of likelihood, or is that something that you would prefer us not to consider?

And taken in the context of evolution, you might find it very difficult to defend homosexuality. Certainly in my first interpretation, If everyone had a same sex “marriage”, the state would come to an end in a single generation.

I, for one, couldn’t hope to provide a defense of homosexuality in an evolutionary context; and, further, I don’t see why such a defense is even necessary. However, I will pose a secular question in evolutionary terms.

[list]Could not inherited characteristic (genetics) and/or transmitted ideas/behaviors (memetics) be operating to find an evolutionarily stable mix of gays and straights?[/list]

Since one of Brock’s recent statements tends to fit in with my conjecture, I’m glad that he made his first before I was able to finish this one.

If everybody who could procreate did, it would soon enough lead to the destruction of humankind, too. Homosexuality is simply one of several ways to avoid overpopulation of the species.

I wasn’t thinking in terms of limiting population growth, but more along the lines of having some mixture of gays and straights that doesn’t drive to either extreme.

This is my own opinion. I find my (for lack of a better term) model to be a heck of a lot more plausible than the prospect of reaching extinction because we somehow all become not good and fully participate in homosexual marriage.

Seems like every time you guys look like you might lose an argument, you employ one of the only two tricks you’ve got: 1) re-frame your position, as in:

How did you jump from “Plato” to “secular” in one fell-swoop? Based on Plato’s definitions of right and wrong you may be correct in your reasoning, but I don’t recall where it’s said that Plato’s reasoning is the basis for all secular definitions of right and wrong.

Not only did I never say anything remotely like that, it has nothing to do with the point in question.

Homosexuality is a personal sexual preference that does not involve non-consenting adults.

If we all pursue “that” (our personal sexual preferences that do not involve non-consenting adults), then it does not lead to the extinction of humankind, and is, according to your definition, in line with what would be considered Platonically “good.”

This was never what the debate was about. This is what it was over:

I issued a challenge awhile back for anyone to list a single valid reason that wasn’t religious in nature as to why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry and never got anyone to take me up on that challenge. That challenge still stands

Which I pointed out in my last post by writing:

I was answering Les’s challenge. Which I think I have successfully done. I.E. if I take the secular stance that good is that which we can all participate in and mankind will survive, wrong is that which if we all participated in it mankind would not survive, then homosexual “marriage” is wrong.

We are talking about MARRAIGE not casual relationships. I’m not interested in defeating your other points, although it’d be amusing enough. Stop trying to draw the debate off course (which, of course, Brock accuses ME of doing). At best I could be faulted for writing “the secular” instead of “a secular”. But in context, only a very stupid evil bastard could have missed the meaning. Or one bent on changing the basis of the argument so he wouldn’t have to admit his challenge was met.

Or you take out your only other weapon in debate 2) take your opponents comments out of context, they’re much easier to defeat that way:

I guess then that any fictional tale set in real surroundings must be fact.

This is great. If you read about one sentence of what I wrote, you might get that bit of whimsy to fly. But if you read, I don’t know, say two whole sentences, it’d be pretty tough to get near it.

Interesting enough, if nowiser had made any of the attacks against my statement concerning the Bible, I’d respect it a great deal more. I wish he would speak his mind. This is an area where he has probably more authority than any of us. Tell us, nowiser, what makes it possible to tell a myth from a factual ancient tale? Why might the fact that there are minor discrepancies in the Gospel accounts lead us to believe that they are more likely truthful eyewitness accounts than a myth?

And of course you’ve provided me with the standard (you must all read the same “how to behave like an atheist field manual”)

If you are a halfway decent Biblical scholar you should be well aware of the Bible’s many inconsistencies.

In general response to the comments concerning the authenticity of the Bible:

Compared to other ancient writings we have earlier manuscripts for the Bible (25 –150 years after the originals compared to about 1000 year average for other ancient books). There are more manuscripts. 5,686 handwritten Greek NT manuscripts compared to less than 20 for most other ancient books. The manuscripts are more accurately copied for the Bible. The Mahabarrata is only 90% accurate, Homer 95%, the NT is 99.5% accurate.

The manuscripts for the Bible are more abundantly supported. Early church fathers from the 2nd and 3rd century quoted the Bible 36,289 times in their writings. All but 11 versus of the NT could be reconstructed just from those quotes.

A combination of numerous non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Thallus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, etc.) reveals a story line congruent with the eyewitness testimony of the NT confirming the following:
a) Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceasar.
b) He lived a virtuous life.
c) He was a wonder worker.
d) He had a brother named James
e) He was acclaimed to be the messiah
f) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate
g) An eclipse and earthquake accompanied his crucifixtion..
h) He was crucified on the eve of Jewish Passover
i) His disciples believed He rose from the dead.
j) Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
k) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Some quotes from those works:
Speaking of Christ’s crucifixion, Thallus (c. AD 52) wrote “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.”
Phlegon, freed slave of Emperor Hadrian (AD 80) “Jesus, while alive, was of no assitance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails” He also wrote “The eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place...”

Paul named eyewitnesses of the risen Christ. “What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the 500 brethren still being alive. St. Paul says in effect: ‘if you do not believe me, you can ask them.’ Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly 2,000 years ago.” William Lille

And this is just a summary.

Finally I point out that no one challenged this piece of nonsense:

There was a problem though, there were numerous versions of Christianity based on different texts and gospels. He got word of some Priests meeting to discuss a growing sect of Christianity started by Arius. He invited them to meet in Nicaea instead and took over the meeting. The Arius problem was then quickly dismissed as being “too new” and shut down, he then got them to sift through all of the many gospels and books and letters to bind together in a single volume to unify the religion under. But there were a TON. But he narrowed the many gospels down to only four.

But it inherently defies this statement:

Outside of the Bible I seriously doubt you can provide any evidence in support of his existence and deeds.

I wonder why. Could it be that y’all will try just about anything to deny the Bible? One might think you had a motive. That doesn’t track with my understanding of your beliefs. I mean, if there is no God, why waste breath on it? Would you tell a kid there is no Santa Claus, just to show how smart you are?

David, from where I’m standing you’re far from winning any argument as of yet.

At this point in the evening, after spending too much time already responding to the foolishness that is Randall’s postings, I’m going to risk the appearance of not having a decent counter-argument by just not bothering to try and respond to yours right now. It’s just not worth it to have to repeat the same things I’ve already said in other threads.

foolishness, delusion, arrogance, judgment,
condemnation,

I mean, if there is no God, why waste breath on it?

B/c you’re a troll and we just can’t help feeding you out of our generous natures.

*belch* hmm… that was delicious, could you please pass the rabid secular humanism? :drunk:

I was wrong you have a 3rd mode of defense, name calling.

I was wrong you have a 3rd mode of defense, name calling.

I said you were trolling for comments, ie, you’re a troll.  An ad-hominem attack would have been calling you a slimy, green, dull-witted galoot living under a bridge.

And I still say the reason we “waste breath on it” is because you trolled for a response, and we took the bait.

Ragman, I don’t know you at all, but I was probably using arcnet and uunet before you were born. I know what you meant when you called me a troll.

A person that actively goes about trolling for flames is admirable? Wow, I guess my values really are passe.

Yikes!

Well, there’s so many cooks in the kitchen now that if I want to actually respond to certain quoted materials, I’d have to quote the quotes that someone else quoted.

And that’s going to get really messy.

But I am still interested in the semantics of an assertion that David made-- that from a secular position, “that which we could all engage in, without destroying mankind” would necessarily be good.  While I thought he was grounding this in Platonic idealism, he asserts that this is not so. . .

But my point about semantics remains valid--

If the subject that the relative pronoun “that” is referring to is not “homosexual relations” but “gay marriage” then, yes, D could defend his argument as being logically correct.  If everyone practiced gay marriage and did not cheat on their spouse, to the exclusion of heterosexual union, yes, humanity would become extinct due to a complete failure to produce progeny.

But this only functions by creating a rigid logical architecture--

Using the same logical structure, we could conclude that “eradicating the [insert ethnic or religious minority here] does not threaten the existence of humanity-- therefore it is good. “
In fact, you could “plug in” all sorts of evils that would not entirely annihilate humankind, and arrive at similar results.

It’s also possible to alter the subject that the indefinite pronoun “that” is pointing to, so that it proves that gay marriage is “good.”

If “that” is defined as “for each individual to pursue his/her/its individual sexual proclivities --within the constraints of civil marriage--) then that does not inevitably lead to destruction of humanity (ie: heterosexual marriage is still ‘authorized’ although the logical presupposition has not been altered in any way)

Root problem-- the presupposition can be used to produce almost any “good” or “bad” result that someone wants, on the basis of how they define the relative pronoun.

*gasp, wheeze, --can I get a glass of water, please?--*

On a final note-- I will never become involved in disputes about Biblical interpretation.  The Bible is a *text*, and if all the poststructuralist and Derridean gobbledygook I’ve had to read has taught me anything, it’s that texts (and language itself) has --sliding-- meaning.  It’s never fixed.  On top of that, I don’t know a lick of Greek or Hebrew, my OE is rusty, and my Latin is basic.

Nor am I anywhere near as qualified to discuss any of these issues as anyone who has ever been a practicing (ie: Bible reading) Christian-- I’ve read the Bible, but I read it the same way as I read the Tain: as primarily a mythical work that *might* be loosely based on real events, but could just as plausibly be invented out of whole cloth.

And now I really am done-- ten papers to grade, spreadsheets to construct, and midterm grades to submit before 5 oclock.