Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Straybow]

Okay, I understand the point you and Dino made.

My point though with presenting real examples of gay and lesbian married couples was to show that there are real families that are threatened by Starr's suit. Starr is basically saying that gays and lesbians are inferior and ought to be prohibited from having any healthy, stable family structure in their lives. I wanted to counter such bigoted thought by showing the human faces of the people who would be targeted by Starr's suit.

Imagine a video showing a loving male-female couple. The only problem is that one of them is previously married to another and not divorced, making this couple's marriage invalid. "Can't-we-all-just-get-along" isn't going to change that. The married partner must divorce the previous spouse and then the two can legally marry.

Just because two gay men, or two lesbian women, want to marry doesn't place an obligation on the rest of society to redefine marriage just for them. The USofA didn't redefine legal marriage to include polygamy just to get along with the Mormons.

[Berzerker]

You miss the point, which Agathon understood completely.

Here is what you said:

The difference is that one has to do with the essence of marriage and the other does not.

You said divorce has to do with the essence of marriage and gay "marriage" does not (yer wrong, the essence of marriage is commitment - thats why we use the word in contexts other than marriage, ie he's married to his work). Jesus said if you re-marry after divorcing a wife without cause (infidelity) you are committing adultery. And adultery, like divorce, is "essentially" the opposite of marriage (notice how they both reject commitment?). Now, according to Jesus millions of Americans who are legally married are in fact engaging in adulterous relationships. You dont want Jesus to define marriage for those people, but you do when it comes to gays and polygamists.

The reason why marriage can only be between the man and the woman is because of the "one flesh" or consubstantiality (which, by the way, agathon, is also used in reference to the godhead, which is what Paul says in Ephesians....)

Where is all this in Genesis? Adam and Eve? I've read the text, if they were married it wasn't some joyous event and I dont see where God blessed it. God cursed them, kicked em out of the Garden. How was marriage defined back then? I believe the patriarchs married half sisters whenever possible to produce heirs but they had many children from other women. Polygamy was widespread so I have a tough time accepting a prohibition on it based on what Jesus said about Mosaic divorce law.

This consubstantiality is not present in sodomy. Thus, you cannot have gay "marriage" because the bond is not there in the first place.

Consubstantiality - of one and the same substance, essence, or nature.

You sure about that? Homosexuality is the same nature... Is marriage an emotional bond or is it merely sexual (or something else)? The bond is there or they wouldn't be getting married. The marriage is just a fancy ritual announcing the bond...

This is why I said divorce does not mean you have never been married, it is simply the breaking of the existing bond. Sodomy means that there never was the proper bond in the first place.

Then you're missing the point, divorces for reasons other than infidelity are invalid - the men who remarry are committing adultery (according to Jesus). That means millions of legal marriages in this country are not marriages but are in fact adulterous relationships. You dont want marriage and divorce laws to reflect what Jesus said when it comes to all these people...

[Ben Kenobi]

Anti-imperialists, such as myself, do want the United States, and all other imperialists, to be defeated. After the defeat of the Vietnam War, it took almost two decades (not including the invasion of Grenada) before the United States, before it attacked and invaded another country. It wasn't a period of total peace, as the United States simply used third parties to carry out its wishes, but it gave most countries and peoples a breathing space to try sovereignty for a bit.

The US is a terrible imperialist. Look at the British empire in comparison, ruling over fully a quarter of the globe at their height.

You can argue that their interventions have not always been wise, but you can't really argue that they were imperialist. Prior to the 20th century I can see that, but the policy since Wilson has been changed. The war in Iraq is classic Wilsonian ideals, to liberate a country (which was ruled as a dictatorship), and convert it into a democracy.

I really cannot see much different between what the US did in Iraq, as what happened in the liberal revolutions across Europe in 1848, where foreign republican powers attempted to topple Monachies and establish republics governed by the people. This motivation would have been unequivocally teemed 'anti-imperialist' by the socialists especially.

Now if you were an isolationist I can see your critique, but a socialist should be happy that a dictatorship has been overturned and replaced by a representative democracy.

[Ben Kenobi]

You said divorce has to do with the essence of marriage and gay "marriage" does not (yer wrong, the essence of marriage is commitment - thats why we use the word in contexts other than marriage, ie he's married to his work).

"Let us not to the marriage of true minds, admit impediments"
"Love is not love, which alters with it alterations found"

You are right that it's used in other contexts, but it has always been more forceful then mere commitment. It is used to express an indissoluble bind. This is why when you say that someone is married to his work, that he cannot tear himself away from his work. The same is true with my quote, the "marriage of true minds", represents a union together in both body and spirit.

Jesus said if you re-marry after divorcing a wife without cause (infidelity) you are committing adultery. And adultery, like divorce, is "essentially" the opposite of marriage (notice how they both reject commitment?).

No, I am referring something to do with the 'nature' of marriage when I talk about it's essence. Adultery is the 'twisting' or the 'perversion' of marriage so to speak, in that it takes the bond in marriage and spreads it out to other people. Divorce is the actual tearing apart. The two are not the same thing. Divorce is the result of adultery.

Now, according to Jesus millions of Americans who are legally married are in fact engaging in adulterous relationships. You dont want Jesus to define marriage for those people, but you do when it comes to gays and polygamists.

No, I've not explained it clearly. I've said two things. The definition as to what constitutes grounds for dissolving a marriage vary from person to person. I listed four cases in general. A relationship between a divorced woman and someone else may or may not be adultery depending on the circumstances involved. You cannot immediately say that there is adultery present simply given the information that a woman has been married prior and is in another relationship with a man, and has chosen to marry again.

Now, you can say there is adultery if the woman is licitly married, and takes up with another man. Or as with a man who does the same.

This is different with homosexuality. The bond cannot be there in the first place. All homosexual relations are considered sodomy, regardless of the circumstances involved.

Where is all this in Genesis? Adam and Eve? I've read the text, if they were married it wasn't some joyous event and I dont see where God blessed it.

They were married before they were kicked out of the garden. They were only cursed after they disobeyed.

God cursed them, kicked em out of the Garden. How was marriage defined back then? I believe the patriarchs married half sisters whenever possible to produce heirs but they had many children from other women. Polygamy was widespread so I have a tough time accepting a prohibition on it based on what Jesus said about Mosaic divorce law.

Then you can see it by how Jesus says it that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman together. As Agathon commented this means that they become literally and spiritually, one person together, which is what is meant by consubstantiality. This is why polygamy doesn't work.

Consubstantiality - of one and the same substance, essence, or nature.

You sure about that? Homosexuality is the same nature...

Yes, but they aren't joined. That's the point.

Is marriage an emotional bond or is it merely sexual (or something else)? The bond is there or they wouldn't be getting married. The marriage is just a fancy ritual announcing the bond...

It's both. It's two persons becoming one flesh.

Then you're missing the point, divorces for reasons other than infidelity are invalid - the men who remarry are committing adultery (according to Jesus). That means millions of legal marriages in this country are not marriages but are in fact adulterous relationships. You dont want marriage and divorce laws to reflect what Jesus said when it comes to all these people...

No, I don't, because they aren't Christians. They are not bound by the laws of God barring divorce. As Christ said, the law has changed. These people still have hard hearts, and so for them the law should remain as it was for the mosaic code, which permits divorce. For sodomy, it's the exact same. You hold them to the natural law which states that marriage is between one man and one woman, which the Jews had no difficulty abiding to, even though they did not have the benefit of Christ. All other societies have said the same, that marriage is between a man and a woman, even if they were not explicitly Christian. This is why I see it as part of the natural law, in the sense that men without Christ have chosen to follow those rules.

[Berzerker]

You are right that it's used in other contexts, but it has always been more forceful then mere commitment. It is used to express an indissoluble bind. This is why when you say that someone is married to his work, that he cannot tear himself away from his work. The same is true with my quote, the "marriage of true minds", represents a union together in both body and spirit.

Commitment is force... Marriage (vows) is just the promise to remain committed to the end. Wishful thinking for many people

No, I am referring something to do with the 'nature' of marriage when I talk about it's essence.

Like what? You said divorce had to do with this essence.

Adultery is the 'twisting' or the 'perversion' of marriage so to speak, in that it takes the bond in marriage and spreads it out to other people. Divorce is the actual tearing apart. The two are not the same thing. Divorce is the result of adultery.

Adultery is a rejection of the marriage commitment, divorce announces the end of the commitment. Neither is related to the essence of marriage.

No, I've not explained it clearly. I've said two things. The definition as to what constitutes grounds for dissolving a marriage vary from person to person.

Are we using what Jesus said?

I listed four cases in general. A relationship between a divorced woman and someone else may or may not be adultery depending on the circumstances involved. You cannot immediately say that there is adultery present simply given the information that a woman has been married prior and is in another relationship with a man, and has chosen to marry again.

Millions of people are married today without a "valid" divorce (infidelity) from a previous marriage. Jesus said they are engaged in adultery. Adultery is not marriage, true? Why do you want our laws to respect adultery as marriage but not polygamy or gay marriage? The former rejects commitment, not the latter...

This is different with homosexuality. The bond cannot be there in the first place. All homosexual relations are considered sodomy, regardless of the circumstances involved.

Gays cant have an emotional bond or commit to each other? Why is that? Is that true for polygamists too?

They were married before they were kicked out of the garden. They were only cursed after they disobeyed.

You're right, but God didn't marry them. Eve was taken from Adam (his rib) and thats when Adam says she is one with his flesh etc. God didn't say anything about their relationship until he found out she was pregnant and got mad.

Then you can see it by how Jesus says it that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman together.

I cant see that, he was asked about divorce law within a culture where men could dump their wives. It isn't clear to me this prohibits polygamy. Given how the patriarchs did not prohibit polygamy and some in fact practiced it in various forms I'd need more from Jesus than just a criticism of concurrent divorce practices in a "monogamous" society.

As Agathon commented this means that they become literally and spiritually, one person together, which is what is meant by consubstantiality. This is why polygamy doesn't work.

If two people can be one via commitment, why cant 3 people? How do two people become one "literally"?

Yes, but they aren't joined. That's the point.

Yes they are, thats what commitment is all about. Do you believe in forced marriages? You know, like some teenage girl is "promised" to someone and if she doesn't fulfill her duty she gets acid in the face? If she is "joined" to someone by her family/culture/tradition do you consider that a valid marriage even though she doesn't want to be married? Then commitment defines marriage, the commitments people make to each other, not commitments allegedly by God or Jesus on our behalf..

No, I don't, because they aren't Christians. They are not bound by the laws of God barring divorce.

Or marriage...

As Christ said, the law has changed. These people still have hard hearts, and so for them the law should remain as it was for the mosaic code, which permits divorce.

But we aint all Jews and Jesus permits divorce.

For sodomy, it's the exact same. You hold them to the natural law which states that marriage is between one man and one woman, which the Jews had no difficulty abiding to, even though they did not have the benefit of Christ. All other societies have said the same, that marriage is between a man and a woman, even if they were not explicitly Christian. This is why I see it as part of the natural law, in the sense that men without Christ have chosen to follow those rules.

So if the rest of the world doesn't become Christian, we all "chose" Mosaic Law? So all those dietary laws etc etc etc etc apply to all non-Christians? Polygamy and sodomy are and have been widespread... So much for natural law

Take yer time, Ben. I know you got plenty on yer plate already.

[Asher]

Just because two gay men, or two lesbian women, want to marry doesn't place an obligation on the rest of society to redefine marriage just for them.

You do realize that the USofA is actually going through excessive amounts of work just to redefine marriage to specifically exclude gays?

[MrFun]

The US is a terrible imperialist. Look at the British empire in comparison, ruling over fully a quarter of the globe at their height.

You can argue that their interventions have not always been wise, but you can't really argue that they were imperialist. Prior to the 20th century I can see that, but the policy since Wilson has been changed. The war in Iraq is classic Wilsonian ideals, to liberate a country (which was ruled as a dictatorship), and convert it into a democracy.

Is there anything that you're NOT ignorant in?? Because it seems that in addition to many other topics, you're also ignorant about history.

Wilson did not give a **** about sovereignty and autonomy for non-European peoples. He was a racist through and through, who introduced forced segregation in the federal workforce.

His so-called ideal of national independence for ethnic groups who lived under an imperial government applied only insofar to European (white) populations. This led to the Balkanization of southeastern Europe, for example, after World War I with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

But Wilson never cared to pressure Great Britain, France, Portugal, and other European powers to grant independence to peoples in Africa, India, and east Asia. As far as I'm concerned, Wilson's racist disregard for peoples around the world undid any claim for any sincerity in so-called "democracy" and "self-deterimination."

[DinoDoc]

The redefinition occured quite awhile ago and required no real work on thier part. Your better arguement would be that such homosexual unions have occured in the past even sanctified by the church without causing the collapse of society.

[chequita guevara]

The US is a terrible imperialist. Look at the British empire in comparison, ruling over fully a quarter of the globe at their height.

You mistake direct control as being the only possible form of imperialism. The United States has always been a far more efficient imperialist. It costs a lot less to get the locals to be your bully boys than to send your own troops and flags. In addition, your own troops and flags inspire resistance, while local governments can thumb their nose to the U.S. in public, thus gaining the support of their own people, while still protecting the property of the Americans.

Today, the American system rules the globe, except for small pockets of resistance like Cuba and . . . well that's about it. No other empire has ever succeeded in conquering the world.

[Asher]

The redefinition occured quite awhile ago and required no real work on thier part. Your better arguement would be that such homosexual unions have occured in the past even sanctified by the church without causing the collapse of society.

In what way does, say, Prop 8 constitute "no real work"?

[MrFun]

The redefinition occured quite awhile ago and required no real work on thier part. Your better arguement would be that such homosexual unions have occured in the past even sanctified by the church without causing the collapse of society.

EDIT: never mind

[Asher]

Amending state constitutions is never "no real work". DinoDoc is taking a massive page out of Ben's books by being disingenuous. Is this contagious on Apolyton, or in Christianity as a whole?

[DinoDoc]

In what way does, say, Prop 8 constitute "no real work"?

Preserving the status quo regardless of what contempt you hold it in fails to meet the qualifications of redefinition.

[Asher]

Preserving the status quo regardless of what contempt you hold it in fails to meet the qualifications of redefinition.

The status quo at the time of Prop 8 was the legalization of gay marriage.

Is Ben sleeping over at your place today, DinoDoc?

[DinoDoc]

The status quo at the time of Prop 8 was the legalization of gay marriage.

The legalization was the redefinition as the opponents of gay marriage saw it.

Is Ben sleeping over at your place today, DinoDoc?

Is this going to be your retort everytime people say something you dislike? Should I prepare myself for more 3rd grade wit?