A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Okay I will admit that I might have been too fast to say that. Still I do not agree with his way of discussing, and I do not think it can yield any good results. If this thought is true can only be determined by future discussions.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Brief question Aaron V:

You've made it very clear that you havn't read the replies to this discussion. I'll quote you.

I don't think I'm motivated enough to read 19 pages of nonsense.

 

So if you've not read it, how do you know it's got logical falacies in it?

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Because I read them after I posted that, in order to see what's been said already.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Then since you are so confident of your position, provide examples of these logical fallacies.

[Michael Roberts]

In the church they say we are all Made in gods image therefor by not allowing gays to wed are we saying a part of god is wrong and god is not Intittled to wed if he could

[Hutch Hogan]

This is perhaps the strangest argument I've heard in favour of same sex marriage. 

Though the concept of a deity being the reason to whether or not the state should provide benefits to couples that wish to unite is also silly to me. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That implies that God made these people gay, which isn't something that the Bible supports.

[Hutch Hogan]

Kind of depends.  Exodus implies that god can harden hearts and Paul talks of predestination. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Follow the logic through. If God made us with some aspect that forced us to sin, and made it impossible to be redeemed, then he's basically made us with no possibility to be saved. That would be radically unfair.

Hardening of hearts is a phrase that is meant differently to God forcing it upon Pharaoh. I'd recomend reading here

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&arti...

And as for predestination, I would say that Paul is writing to include God's perspective. Remember, time does not exist for God. To him, what we perecieve as past, present and future have all already happened. Therefore, naturally, it looks like predestination to us, but it isn't. We are just percieving it differently. We still make all the choices.

[Hutch Hogan]

Follow the logic through. If God made us with some aspect that forced us to sin, and made it impossible to be redeemed, then he's basically made us with no possibility to be saved. That would be radically unfair.

As an atheist I would contend that a theistic position goes beyond what logic allows.  That stated it must be conceded that there are sects of Christianity where logic is secondary to the "word of god".  The YEC movement is an excellent example of groups that deny logic in favour of their understanding of scripture. 

Within the Baptist movement are believers in an entirely predestined existence which would also face the problem of homosexuality as determined by god. 

You would also see this justified through passages like:

"Many are called, but few are chosen" Mt 22:14

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit" John 15:16a

 

 

Hardening of hearts is a phrase that is meant differently to God forcing it upon Pharaoh. I'd recomend reading here

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&arti...

 That was a very less than exceptional article.  The primary problem is that "clue" that a phrase is an idiom is that it makes god look bad or where free will in denied (which is circular reasoning). 

The article does not scrutinize the Hebrew language in a satisfactory manner. 

They state that this idiomizing works in Hebrew and insist that the same thing is true in Greek, but do not mention it, especially problematic in the supposedly perfect translation of the septuagint. 

This is also the worst citation I have ever seen in my life:

 "James MacKnight, in a lengthy section on biblical idioms, agrees with Bullinger’s assessment that in Hebrew active verbs can express permission and not direct action."

MacKnight's point is not cited, he is listed as a source, and the citation does not provide any references to the pages or chapter used. 

 

And as for predestination, I would say that Paul is writing to include God's perspective. Remember, time does not exist for God. To him, what we perecieve as past, present and future have all already happened. Therefore, naturally, it looks like predestination to us, but it isn't. We are just percieving it differently. We still make all the choices.

Though this is your interpretation and non-authoritative.  It would also be rejected by bible literalists as such. 

While I agree with you that there can be interpretations that allow for free-will from the bible, having held that position in my lapse into Christianity, that interpretation is not authoritative, nor is universally accepted. 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

"Many are called, but few are chosen" Mt 22:14

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit" John 15:16a

I would argue that the first is more to do with the fact that God reaches out to the entire human race, but not everyone responds. The second one is more specific, IE that God chooses people to do specific things (such as missionary work).

That was a very less than exceptional article.  The primary problem is that "clue" that a phrase is an idiom is that it makes god look bad or where free will in denied (which is circular reasoning).

I'd disagree. If you see someone doing something out of character, you infer that something is causing that, rather than them just doing it spontaneously, and that you do not have all of the available information on why they are doing it. Simmilarly, in this case, the argument is that forceably hardening people's hearts and making them sin is not in line with God's charachter elsewhere, and therefore more examination is required.

Though this is your interpretation and non-authoritative.  It would also be rejected by bible literalists as such.

 

Biblical literalistic would run very quickly into the problem that there are some verses of the Bible that suggest pre-destination, and others that do not. The rub is though, that we are very clearly commanded to do things by the Bible. This implies therefore that we have agency. That we are capable of choosing. If everyone was predestined, there would be no need to make commands. There would be no need for us to have agency.

[Hutch Hogan]

I would argue that the first is more to do with the fact that God reaches out to the entire human race, but not everyone responds. The second one is more specific, IE that God chooses people to do specific things (such as missionary work).

That is certainly a valid interpretation, but an interpretation none the less.  The interpretation that I outlined is still prevalent among literalist denominations of Protestantism. 

Biblical literalistic would run very quickly into the problem that there are some verses of the Bible that suggest pre-destination, and others that do not. The rub is though, that we are very clearly commanded to do things by the Bible. This implies therefore that we have agency. That we are capable of choosing. If everyone was predestined, there would be no need to make commands. There would be no need for us to have agency.

I'm not arguing the logic of Biblical literalism, I've previously stated that theism itself is rationally problematic for me.  But there are adherents to this belief.