Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Ben Kenobi]

That one I can answer, easy. God likes different combinations. Just men means only one combination, m-m, boring. Men AND women means, m-m, m-f, f-f, m-f-f-f-f-f...err, well, at least the three...

Again, it doesn't stand up to Ockham's razor which says the simplest explanation is best. If God sincerely intended for men and men to be together, why are there men and women? If as you say complexity is the desire, then why not 4 or 5 sexes?

[snoopy369]

Again, it doesn't stand up to Ockham's razor which says the simplest explanation is best. If God sincerely intended for men and men to be together, why are there men and women? If as you say complexity is the desire, then why not 4 or 5 sexes?

Umm, Occam's Razor is not a remotely relevant argument here. Like I said, God doesn't give a **** about which combination is better. He didn't create men and women because he wants precisely 1 of each. God is a nCr kind of guy.

Why not 4 or 5? Simple. God's lazy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, if you don't believe it's right to enforce a christian code on non-christians, why is it right to enforce a christian definition of a word and/or legal act on people? What's the difference?

The difference is that one has to do with the essence of marriage and the other does not. Divorce is not the ideal, but a divorce does not mean that you have never been married. Sodomy on the other hand isn't ever marriage. Not even from the very start.

If you change the definition of marriage to saying that sex is irrelevant, then it's no different from friendship. This is why Canada actually checks up on those declaring, as to whether they have a sexual relationship or not. They realise that because of the new definition, they cannot exclude friends or roomates from defining their partnership as 'married', unless of course they cling to a definition that marriage must involve sex.

[Ben Kenobi]

Umm, Occam's Razor is not a remotely relevant argument here.

Would you prefer the formulation, "entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily?" You are reaching to try to save your argument.

Why not 4 or 5? Simple. God's lazy.

Then, if God is lazy, why did he create 2 and not 1?

[snoopy369]

Marriage is no different from friendship? Wow, do you have another thing coming someday. Well, perhaps not...

[snoopy369]

Would you prefer the formulation, "do not unnecessarily multiply causes?" You are reaching to try to save your argument.



Then, if God is lazy, why did he create 2 and not 1?

Occam's Razor is not relevant because if anything it applies to YOUR argument. If you knew anything beyond the name of the argument you'd know that...

And, clearly God is not completely lazy. Just somewhat. He created 2, and then decided to take a nap... and then, gosh, don't you know, it was the next day, time to create fish!

[Agathon]

He was asked about divorce, not about marriage.

Matthew 19

Sorry Berz, Ben is right here.

I was intrigued, so I looked up the passage for myself in the Septuagint.

In this passage God's #1 carpenter is talking about what God sees as indissoluble by a non-sexual act of a third party. That much is clear from the Greek verb used to translate "joined", which means more like "welded together forever" than "put together". The idea is that they have become consubstantial, such that it is physically impossible for a third person to separate them as a substance (except in one way, see below). Hence the "one flesh" (σὰρξ μία) idea.

This is the relevant part. I apologize for my own translation.

[4-6]"In reply he said: “Do you not know that the creator from the beginning made them male and female” and he said “for that reason, man will leave behind his father and his mother and he will be joined (κολληθήσεται) to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?”, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh (σὰρξ μία): therefore, that which God has joined, let man not separate."

"Joined to his wife" has an obvious sexual meaning along with the meaning of socially recognized marriage.

It then deals with one case where this unity of flesh can be separated. It says:

[7-9]"They said to him: “then why did Moses command ‘to give a document of divorce and to divorce’?” He said to them that Moses left it to you to divorce your wives in accord with your hardheartedness (πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ), but from the beginning it was not so (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως). I say to you that he who would divorce his wife other than for whoring around (μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ) and who will marry another, that [that guy] commits adultery."

The idea here seems to be that Moses was dealing with a debased culture, which had fallen from an ideal state (people had become hard hearted, so what could he do?). Jesus is saying that things are no longer like that, so Moses rule no longer applies, or that we ought not to think it is right.

According to this passage in light of the previous one by the act of infidelity, the woman dissolves the consubstantiality (presumably by taking some other man's "matter" into her, but let's not go there) or she brings it into a state where it is allowed to be dissolved. But if she doesn't, then you are as bad as Moses' contemporaries if you want to divorce her, because you are breaking the consubstantiality.

This leads to an interesting view where a judge cannot legitimately cause your divorce unless he has sex with your wife.

But Jesus says that you can't divorce your wife if she is faithful, because then you commit adultery. It's not clear that this breaks the consubstantiality, though. So given that (possibly only female) adultery seems to be the only way to invalidate a marriage, if neither party does anything wrong, then divorce is impermissible.

Now here's where it gets interesting, because someone might suggest that a man could marry two women, and not commit adultery because he was married to both of them.

But if that were the case, not only would he be one flesh with both of them, but they would have to then be consubstantial with each other, and that is definitely not allowed for the reason given in verses 4-5. It is because they are male and female that consubstantiality is possible. So gay marriages are prohibited because it is held to be impossible for two people of the same sex to become one flesh (marriage is explained as a holy union of opposites). Group marriages are similarly prohibited, because marriage is seen as a physical union of substances, and not a social agreement.

This passage absolutely and unambiguously upholds marriage to be between one man and one woman, or a lot of what Jesus says does not make sense. He does not say that consubstantiality can never be invalidated, but only that it ought not to be invalidated and that if it is invalidated, then divorce is permissible.

But you aren't supposed to commit adultery anyway, as the subsequent passages make clear. But they don't say anything about male adultery invalidating consubstantiality (I can't remember what happens to Abraham's marriage when he screws his wife's maid). It's also not clear whether gay sex counts as adultery, although I'm sure it is prohibited elsewhere in the Bible.

But this passage implies an absolute prohibition on gay marriage, or verses 4-5 won't make sense. A male and female coupling is a necessary condition of marriage as conceived of in this Gospel. I cannot see any reading of this passage that doesn't commit it to heterosexual monogamy.

[Agathon]

So if I'm understanding your argument then, I am taking your logic further to see to what end are we allowed to take away other people's rights then - such as if we would ever have a majority who would like to repeal the 14th Amendment in our U.S. Constitution through referendum.

When a law becomes that unpopular, it is often unworkable or has massively deleterious effects as people try to get around it. Prohibition is an obvious example.

If a huge majority wanted the 14th amendment removed, then it might as well be removed. So, for example, if 80-90% of Americans were that dead set against gay marriage, then there would be no point trying to protect it, because that 80-90% would simply elect politicians who would do their best to ignore it. Laws are only effective if there is political will to enforce them.

That's the point of having a constitution that has a built in capacity for change. The idea is to make change difficult enough so that it can't be done rashly and out of momentary hysteria, but not so difficult that people simply ignore the rules as unworkable.

In reality, people have no effective rights other than those that their state and their fellow citizens are prepared to give them.

What you've discovered, if anything, is that democracy is a fundamentally silly way to choose a government.

[Berzerker]

The answer will vary depending on who you talk to, and my own opinion on this has changed.

Aren't we going by Jesus?

As for secular law reflecting church law, I don't think they should be the same.

Except for gays... There are millions of legally married Americans who are in fact adulterers according to what Jesus said. You were mentioning the essence of marriage? It aint adultery, its commitment.

[Berzerker]

Aggie

Sorry Berz, Ben is right here.

I was intrigued, so I looked up the passage for myself in the Septuagint.

Jesus said that, but it aint in Genesis... The first people were told to be fruitful and multiply - fill the Earth. Nothing about marriage, no prohibition on polygamy. Adam and Eve didn't have parents, so who was Jesus talking about being married? We already know God was not at all happy with their "marriage", he booted em out of the Garden and cursed them.

But this passage implies an absolute prohibition on gay marriage, or verses 4-5 won't make sense. A male and female coupling is a necessary condition of marriage as conceived of in this Gospel. I cannot see any reading of this passage that doesn't commit it to heterosexual monogamy.

He was asked about divorce law, not marriage. That context is important, if gays weren't allowed to marry he wouldn't mention them in a discussion about divorce. And some of the patriarchs were polygamists, they may have been following that weird ME tradition of marrying a half sister to produce an heir but they had many wives and many offspring. Were they not one in the flesh? If Jesus was asked about divorce law in a polygamous culture, he may have had a different message. He wasn't telling us who should or should not be allowed to marry, much less legally... Yours (and Ben's) interpretation would indict polygamy and thats in conflict with 1000s of years of history.

As you pointed out, additional context comes from the fact the people were more or less still practicing divorce under Mosaic law. Men could dump their wives real easy and Jesus was pinpointing his criticism to this reality - men shouldn't dump their wives, only infidelity warrants divorce. Also, Jesus was not saying who can or cannot marry according to the law... He wasn't even saying it should be illegal for men to dump their wives. Millions of marriages today would be redefined as adulterous relationships by Jesus' grounds for divorce. Of course, now women can divorce for reasons other than infidelity too

[Berzerker]

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

Adultery is the opposite of the essence of "marriage", marriage is about commitment and gays and polygamists can be committed just like anyone else. Thats why Jesus limited divorce to infidelity...

[Agathon]

Aggie

Jesus said that, but it aint in Genesis... The first people were told to be fruitful and multiply - fill the Earth. Nothing about marriage, no prohibition on polygamy. Adam and Eve didn't have parents, so who was Jesus talking about being married? We already know God was not at all happy with their "marriage", he booted em out of the Garden and cursed them.

I agree that the Bible isn't consistent, but most Christians are going to take the Gospels over other texts if there is a conflict. Many will just pretend that there is no conflict.

It's quite a shame really, since the Christianity of the Gospels is a much more sophisticated and humane religion than the religion of the Old Testament, which is basically a particularly vicious and barbarous cult whose adherents practiced sacrifice and groveled in the dirt (albeit in a time of many vicious and barbarous cults - I always preferred Zoroastrianism myself).

Case in point the heavy platonist influence in the subsequent comments in Matthew.

He was asked about divorce law, not marriage. That context is important, if gays weren't allowed to marry he wouldn't mention them in a discussion about divorce.

But the weird consubstantial understanding of marriage that precedes it makes marriage a part of natural law which a homosexual marriage would violate. So it's no surprise that it isn't mentioned. Having a gay marriage in this view would be like having Yin and Yin.

And some of the patriarchs were polygamists, they may have been following that weird ME tradition of marrying a half sister to produce an heir but they had many wives and many offspring. Were they not one in the flesh?

Not according to this view. But then again, I have no need to make the Bible consistent, and I think it is hopeless to do so.

The idea of consubstantiality is not a metaphorical or rhetorical notion. It's likely an allusion to consubstantiality with the Godhead. Remember that marriage is often a metaphor in these works. It's not clear that there isn't one message here for the learned and another for the vulgar, which is a regular feature of ancient works. The verb usually translated as "receive" in this passage is notoriously hard to pin down, and is usually translated in a way that obscures the problems with its meaning.

If Jesus was asked about divorce law in a polygamous culture, he may have had a different message. He wasn't telling us who should or should not be allowed to marry, much less legally... Yours (and Ben's) interpretation would indict polygamy and thats in conflict with 1000s of years of history.

Whoever wrote this passage does indict polygamy. They are alluding to a tradition in which male and female are eternal cosmological principles, the unification of which is necessary to uphold a stable reality. You can see a similar belief in most traditions and cultures (why do you think that Greek gods have spouses that complement or balance them?). It's what verses 4-5 are about. He isn't talking about a social custom, but alluding to something deep about the natural world itself.

If he had been asked in a polygamous culture, he probably would have had some other view of marriage than the consubstantiality view on which this passage rests.

Jesus (if that is who said this, and that is far from certain) is a person living in a Hellenized and then Romanized culture. It's no surprise the Gospels are quite metaphysically sophisticated compared to the vile death cult of the ancient Hebrews.

As you pointed out, additional context comes from the fact the people were more or less still practicing divorce under Mosaic law. Men could dump their wives real easy and Jesus was pinpointing his criticism to this reality - men shouldn't dump their wives, only infidelity warrants divorce. Also, Jesus was not saying who can or cannot marry according to the law... He wasn't even saying it should be illegal for men to dump their wives.

He's talking about divine law, not ordinary law. He has very little interest in the sociology of marriage.

He doesn't say it, but his consubstantial view of marriage necessarily implies it.

Millions of marriages today would be redefined as adulterous relationships by Jesus' grounds for divorce. Of course, now women can divorce for reasons other than infidelity too

Yes.

I am not a Christian, so I don't feel any need to make the Bible consistent. I do however read Greek, and because Biblical Greek is so easy, I thought I'd take a break from the Sophist. Once you read it in Greek, certain things that aren't evident in translation just jump out at you.

[Felch]

Aggie

Jesus said that, but it aint in Genesis... The first people were told to be fruitful and multiply - fill the Earth. Nothing about marriage, no prohibition on polygamy. Adam and Eve didn't have parents, so who was Jesus talking about being married? We already know God was not at all happy with their "marriage", he booted em out of the Garden and cursed them.

He was asked about divorce law, not marriage. That context is important, if gays weren't allowed to marry he wouldn't mention them in a discussion about divorce. And some of the patriarchs were polygamists, they may have been following that weird ME tradition of marrying a half sister to produce an heir but they had many wives and many offspring. Were they not one in the flesh? If Jesus was asked about divorce law in a polygamous culture, he may have had a different message. He wasn't telling us who should or should not be allowed to marry, much less legally... Yours (and Ben's) interpretation would indict polygamy and thats in conflict with 1000s of years of history.

As you pointed out, additional context comes from the fact the people were more or less still practicing divorce under Mosaic law. Men could dump their wives real easy and Jesus was pinpointing his criticism to this reality - men shouldn't dump their wives, only infidelity warrants divorce. Also, Jesus was not saying who can or cannot marry according to the law... He wasn't even saying it should be illegal for men to dump their wives. Millions of marriages today would be redefined as adulterous relationships by Jesus' grounds for divorce. Of course, now women can divorce for reasons other than infidelity too

Agathon is certainly right about New Testament trumping the Old for Christians, and while I don't know Greek, I trust his understanding of it. Matthew 19 is undeniably critical of divorce and polygamy, attributing the Old Testament rules to the hard hearts of men (NIV).

[Kuciwalker]

Your argument is that there is legitimate merit in Starr's suit to forcibily dissolve the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples.

This is 100% incorrect. Thus I justify my claim that "You seem to be completely incapable of understanding ANYONE'S argument."

My argument is that warm fuzzy pictures of happy gay couples have NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not Starr's suit has merit.

This is also DinoDoc's argument.

Unless I'm mistakened, you based this argument on the fact that California had changed its constitution to ban legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. You're claiming that Starr's legitimacy comes from saying that because California has now made such marriages illegal, that this gives his case legitimacy. Your quote, "The suit is arguing that they do NOT have that right" seems to be based on California's referendum result on Prop. 8.

You're mistaken because you CAN'T READ.

So if I'm understanding your argument then, I am taking your logic further to see to what end are we allowed to take away other people's rights then - such as if we would ever have a majority who would like to repeal the 14th Amendment in our U.S. Constitution through referendum.

Not only do you misunderstand my argument, you provide a fallacious counterargument to what you think I'm saying! California's constitution provides for passing various types of laws by referenda. I have no idea whether these referenda are capable of modifying the California constitution, or whether the California constitution even really makes gay marriage a right. However, the US Constitution does not provide for referenda in the first place, so obviously one couldn't override it.

So with my understanding of your argument, am I mistakened?[/quote]

[Lorizael]

I've not understood why pacifists would want Americans to be defeated.

I simply said I've never understood those who are pacifists who want america defeated.

Sorry, but these two sentences do not mean the same thing. Any reasonable person who read the first sentence would assume you meant pacifists want America to be defeated.

Anyway, the reason you don't understand why pacifists would want America to be defeated is because pacifists - with the exception of a few crazies - don't want America to be defeated. It's a nonsensical position and in almost all cases making an argument against it is attacking a strawman.