Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Solomwi]

All I was saying here is if it's consent/consent for marriage, that it ought to be consent/consent for divorce. By saying consent/no consent is sufficient for divorce, then no consent/consent ought to be enough for marriage.

How in the hell does that logic work? Pure symmetry? Divorce is consent/no consent precisely because marriage is consent/consent. When one spouse decides he or she no longer wants to be in the marriage, consent/consent is destroyed. Divorce, the cessation of a marriage, is a consequence of that destruction of the mutual consent required for marriage.

[chequita guevara]

Don't go bashing all Christians just as homophobes bash gays.

Don't tell me what to do! You aren't my gay husband!

[MrFun]

But, I love you . . . .

[MrFun]

I'm hoping later tonight I will have time to post a rebuttal to BK's post on Fourteenth Amendment.

[KrazyHorse]

Why bother?

[MOBIUS]

Ditto!

[Ben Kenobi]

How in the hell does that logic work? Pure symmetry?

It's how most contracts work. They are penalties if one party breaks the contract.

Divorce is consent/no consent precisely because marriage is consent/consent. When one spouse decides he or she no longer wants to be in the marriage, consent/consent is destroyed.

If marriage is truly a contract, then you ought to abide by the promises you made at the start. Feelings don't even enter the equation. I can see some exceptions where this is justified, (abuse, etc) but if you are divorcing someone because you are unhappy, then you should have to pay a penalty to the spouse.

Divorce, the cessation of a marriage, is a consequence of that destruction of the mutual consent required for marriage.

Again, if marriage requires mutual consent to establish, it should require mutual consent to dissolve. If you truly are unhappy I think you have a responsibility to talk it out with your spouse first. Sadly, many folks don't have the consideration and simply bail when things get tough.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've stated that a deity that is supposed be good, as you believe, cannot be so if existence is like this.

Ok, now that I can understand. I could say the same about what happened to my dad, that he wouldn't have died as young as he was if God was good, or that a myriad of other suffering wouldn't have happened.

But that's life. Life is hard, and it's never fair. Is it God's fault? He never promises us a rose garden. In fact he says just the opposite, "the road is narrow and few take it." The rewards are after all is said and done here on Earth. He says that others will hate and despise us because of him, and even says we are blessed!

He says, endure correction as discipline. Suffering has a purpose. This is why CS Lewis says that it is not that Christianity is impossible, but that the Christian way has been found hard and left untried.

[Q Classic]

Ok, now that I can understand. I could say the same about what happened to my dad, that he wouldn't have died as young as he was if God was good, or that a myriad of other suffering wouldn't have happened.

But that's life. Life is hard, and it's never fair. Is it God's fault? He never promises us a rose garden.

Obviously. I'm well aware of this, and it does not require the presence of a deity to cause a circumstance such as this.

However, if life is hard, full of suffering and pain, and the deity is regarded as omnipotent and omniscient, then allowing that suffering and pain is not the mark of a good, benevolent being, regardless of the reasons behind it.

In fact he says just the opposite, "the road is narrow and few take it." The rewards are after all is said and done here on Earth.

Unconvincing. There is absolutely no proof that there is a life after death; therefore, promises along those lines feel as disgusting as a Nigerian 419 scam.

He says that others will hate and despise us because of him, and even says we are blessed!

Ah, yes, the notion of being beseiged works really well when you are the ones being discriminated against, but only makes you look callous and arrogant when you are not.

He says, endure correction as discipline. Suffering has a purpose.

Indeed. But there's no need for Christianity or deities to be a part of it.

This is why CS Lewis says that it is not that Christianity is impossible, but that the Christian way has been found hard and left untried.

I never said Christianity was impossible. I said that I cannot justify a reason for it.

[MrFun]

Why bother?

If I can have a chance to humiliate him - again - by pointing out his fallacies with his post on Fourteenth Amendment, how can I pass that up?

I want to get some facts/information together and take time to respond to his specific "arguments" or "points" in that post of his and then blow his whole argument to tiny bits and pieces. But I'm at work so I will put this together sometime tonight.

[MrFun]

However, if life is hard, full of suffering and pain, and the deity is regarded as omnipotent and omniscient, then allowing that suffering and pain is not the mark of a good, benevolent being, regardless of the reasons behind it.

As a Christian (more spiritual kind, than religious) I strongly disagree with this.

Our suffering does not come from God wishing for us to suffer.

All of the suffering that humans have gone through and continue to experience in this world come from our free will to choose between right and wrong. God does not intervene in this regard, because he would have to take away our free will - and he doesn't want to take that away from us because along with the bad, there is good that comes with having free will.

So I do not see God as being mean-spirited because he "allows" us to continue to suffer DUE TO OUR OWN ACTIONS. As for natural disasters that cause mass suffering that is out of our control, I do not believe God is responsible as these are explained by science - the source of these disasters are not from God.

[Q Classic]

All of the suffering that humans have gone through and continue to experience in this world come from our free will to choose between right and wrong. God does not intervene in this regard, because he would have to take away our free will - and he doesn't want to take that away from us because along with the bad, there is good that comes with having free will.

While I hold free will to be one of the highest ideals, I find this problematic precisely because I also think that aphorism that says great evil occurs when "good" people do nothing holds true in this case.

Whether or not we have free will or not, regardless of whether a deity wishes to preserve that, were such a deity truly benevolent (and paternalistic in this case, infantilizing us as a people), such deities would step in to prevent the great evils.

So I do not see God as being mean-spirited because he "allows" us to continue to suffer DUE TO OUR OWN ACTIONS.

I do not think the deity is mean-spirited, per se. I do not think the deity is "good" and "loving", however.

As for natural disasters that cause mass suffering that is out of our control, I do not believe God is responsible as these are explained by science - the source of these disasters are not from God.

I cannot justify the existence of a deity; the world makes more sense and is much more magnificent without the existence of deities.

[MrFun]

I can respect where you're coming from, Classic - even if I disagree.

Thanks for sharing more of your thoughts about that.

[Solomwi]

It's how most contracts work. They are penalties if one party breaks the contract.

Penalties for breach are put into a contract precisely because one party can destroy the agreement without the consent of the other.

If marriage is truly a contract, then you ought to abide by the promises you made at the start. Feelings don't even enter the equation. I can see some exceptions where this is justified, (abuse, etc) but if you are divorcing someone because you are unhappy, then you should have to pay a penalty to the spouse.

For how long? Just like any other ongoing contract, consent is also ongoing. It's not a one time thing, where you consent once at the beginning and must go on performing the contract forever based on that single moment.

What does a penalty have to do with consent, and who's talking about feelings? If a couple wants to establish penalties in the case of one of them withdrawing his or her consent to be married in the future, they're perfectly free to do that. What you think the terms of the marriage should be has nothing to do with the level of consent required (either on an "is" or "should be" basis) to create/maintain/end a marriage. Besides, instituting the penalties you seem to want wouldn't change the fact that only one spouse is withdrawing consent to be married.

Again, if marriage requires mutual consent to establish, it should require mutual consent to dissolve. If you truly are unhappy I think you have a responsibility to talk it out with your spouse first. Sadly, many folks don't have the consideration and simply bail when things get tough.

Again, why? Your idea of how a married couple should handle its problems or what duties they have to one another is completely irrelevant. The simple fact remains that if mutual consent is required to establish or maintain something, then by its very nature, unilateral withdrawal of consent destroys that thing. When one party no longer consents, it is impossible to have mutual consent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whether or not we have free will or not, regardless of whether a deity wishes to preserve that, were such a deity truly benevolent (and paternalistic in this case, infantilizing us as a people), such deities would step in to prevent the great evils.

What separates the great from the small? I don't see any reason why God's actions on the world need violate our own free will. He can act in such a manner by which the opportunities to do good are provided.