Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:17 am

morbo3000 wrote: I do believe, however, that the government has a role in intervening in civil rights issues. I know that's muddy for people who don't believe that gay marriage, . . . is a civil rights issue. But granting that argument, inter-racial marriage, . . . were appropriately fought for by the government.
The only reason the United States government fought for inter-racial marriage was that a particular state banned it. The only reason this became a "civil rights" issue was that a state government interfered in peoples' lives where it had no business doing so.

And no one argued whether the inter-racial marriage was really a "marriage". There was no debate on that point in the Loving vs. Virginia case, for example. Everyone know what a marriage was.

People who don't believe "gay marriage" is a good idea are not out to take away someone's "civil right" to marry. They believe that "marriage", by definition, is a union of a man and a woman, and this man and woman are responsible for raising their biological children. This definition arose all over the world, by virtually every culture. It was not created by any government, church, or legal system. Although most cultures were very aware that homosexuals existed, and some accepted the practice, no one ever came up with the idea that "marriage" is supposed to be a union of two consenting adults.

This new "definition of marriage" could only come about in a society that is obsessed with personal rights, and in a government that is so involved in peoples' lives that it feels it has the authority to determine what a marriage is, and to force everyone to agree with their new definition under threat of a civil rights lawsuit or "hate crime".

And don't forget this little fact. This new notion of marriage will only give the government more authority in determining who are the legal guardians of children. After all, in this new kind of "marriage" children can only come about via the legal system and extra expense. And if required for them, why not for everyone; we should all be equal, shouldn't we? As absurd as this now sounds, our legal system has a habit of taking its "logic" to strange places.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by steve7150 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:34 pm

This new "definition of marriage" could only come about in a society that is obsessed with personal rights, and in a government that is so involved in peoples' lives that it feels it has the authority to determine what a marriage is, and to force everyone to agree with their new definition under threat of a civil rights lawsuit or "hate crime".








It is true this new paradigm now in our culture is all about personal rights to the exclusion of almost anything else. It's seems like most people are in their own little universe and having the right to a happy life in our private universes is where this new morality is going.
It's about "I" now that we have "Ipads" , "Iphones", Home Entertainment Centers, cars that are like private universes, non stop info commercials usually about self improvement, with the emphasis on self. People seem more involved with themselves then at any time in history.
Anything that adds to this is deemed good and anything that interferes with this is deemed bad. That's the basis of the new morality.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by morbo3000 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:26 pm

Tychicus wrote: People who don't believe "gay marriage" is a good idea are not out to take away someone's "civil right" to marry.
One of the "civil rights" issues is whether or not a florist has the right to refuse service to a gay couple's marriage. Or a baker. As I've said earlier this is a murky issue. I understand both sides. I don't believe a simplistic answer on one side or the other takes into consideration how complicated it is.
Tychicus wrote: And don't forget this little fact. This new notion of marriage will only give the government more authority in determining who are the legal guardians of children. After all, in this new kind of "marriage" children can only come about via the legal system and extra expense. And if required for them, why not for everyone; we should all be equal, shouldn't we? As absurd as this now sounds, our legal system has a habit of taking its "logic" to strange places.
That is slippery slope argument. Not a little fact.
...obsessed with personal rights... and in a government that is so involved in peoples' lives... that it feels it has the authority to determine what a marriage is, and to force everyone to agree with their new definition under threat of a civil rights lawsuit or "hate crime".
I think you need to parse that a little better. Personal rights <> gov't in people's lives. Those are different poles. The court isn't getting in people's lives if it determines that the union of two men is a marriage. And the personal rights of gays are in their own home. And so far, the grossest example of hate-speech, Hillsboro Baptist hasn't been legally squelched.
Steve7150 said: It's seems like most people are in their own little universe and having the right to a happy life in our private universes is where this new morality is going.
Um. That's the Declaration of Independence.

To clarify. The definition of "marriage" we are debating is a legal issue. And by legal, I am speaking about constitutional law. Arguments from tradition and history are not how decisions are made. We can petition the publishers of dictionaries about what definition they use. We can stand firm in our religious tradition. But this issue, both semantics, and legal, is being settled constitutionally.

Q: If a civil union has all the benefits of a marriage, then why not call all "unions," including heterosexual couples, a civil union. Then just leave it to the couple to call it what they want? This seems like a good solution, since I think there is a bit of a libertarian bent to this.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by mattrose » Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:00 pm

I want to make a quick comment as an aside. I'm not trying to pick on Morbo, here, but his dismissal of several arguments in this thread b/c he appraises them as logical fallacies is the reason I want to make this point.

We need to be careful about just labeling something a logical fallacy b/c it 'could' fit in that category. The 'slippery slope' label is especially prone to this mistake. One should not just dismiss an argument as 'a slippery slope' fallacy b/c the arguer is suggesting that worse things would come about if a step in that direction were taken. In many cases, those outcomes would actually be very logical predictions. In other words, some slopes actually are quite slippery. The argument needs to be WHY step A wouldn't lead to steps B, C & D. Showing what it is that keep that particular slope from being slippery is far more effective (and necessary) than just saying that calling the slope slippery is not allowed.

This sort of caution is also important when it comes to other 'logical fallacies.' For instance, 'appeal to emotions' can certainly be a logical fallacy... but that doesn't mean that emotions should never be considered as part of an argument. One would be wiser to show WHY those emotions are not compelling to the argument than to just dismiss the emotions as out of bounds.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by darinhouston » Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:35 pm

amen, Matt

from Wikipedia...
In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but is usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by morbo3000 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:39 pm

Matt wrote: The argument needs to be WHY step A *wouldn't* lead to steps B, C & D. Showing what it is that keep that particular slope from being slippery is far more effective (and necessary) than just saying that calling the slope slippery is not allowed.
Good to clarify, Matt.

I think that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the person refuting it.

Why *would* step A lead to steps B, C, and D?

Pointing out the fallacy is a challenge to the person making the claim to support it.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by mattrose » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:22 pm

morbo3000 wrote:
Matt wrote: The argument needs to be WHY step A *wouldn't* lead to steps B, C & D. Showing what it is that keep that particular slope from being slippery is far more effective (and necessary) than just saying that calling the slope slippery is not allowed.
Good to clarify, Matt.

I think that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the person refuting it.

Why *would* step A lead to steps B, C, and D?

Pointing out the fallacy is a challenge to the person making the claim to support it.
That's fair. I would hope both sides would be glad to strengthen their arguments

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:37 am

morbo3000 wrote:
Tychicus wrote:People who don't believe "gay marriage" is a good idea are not out to take away someone's "civil right" to marry.
One of the "civil rights" issues is whether or not a florist has the right to refuse service to a gay couple's marriage. Or a baker. As I've said earlier this is a murky issue. I understand both sides. I don't believe a simplistic answer on one side or the other takes into consideration how complicated it is.
I totally agree with this. It would be better if neither side based their position on "civil rights". Or better yet if there weren't "sides" in the first place. All of us, after all, have one thing in common.
mattrose wrote:
morbo3000 wrote:(Re validity of "slippery slope" argument)

Why *would* step A lead to steps B, C, and D?

Pointing out the fallacy is a challenge to the person making the claim to support it.
That's fair. I would hope both sides would be glad to strengthen their arguments
Okay, here is what you called a "slippery slope" argument:
morbo3000 wrote:
Tychicus wrote: And don't forget this little fact. This new notion of marriage will only give the government more authority in determining who are the legal guardians of children. After all, in this new kind of "marriage" children can only come about via the legal system and extra expense. And if required for them, why not for everyone; we should all be equal, shouldn't we? As absurd as this now sounds, our legal system has a habit of taking its "logic" to strange places.
That is slippery slope argument. Not a little fact.
Well, I think it is a fact that children cannot be born in this new kind of "marriage". All children come from the union of one man and one woman. In a traditional marriage this man and this woman raise the child. You don't need the government, lawyers, or any other "experts" to have any say in where children are assigned.

Legalizing same sex "marriage", and effectively saying that it is equivalent to traditional marriage, would seem to imply that same sex couples ought to have the right to have children just as much as heterosexual couples. Often they want to have some genetic parentage, and so have to get a surrogate. Whether or not you think this is morally right, this course of action certainly involves our legal system.

I don't know where all this will lead. But I think it prudent if we start asking these questions now, rather than rushing in to create a new definition of "marriage" based primarily on "rights", and letting the next generation deal with the fallout.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:51 am

Tychicus wrote:
morbo3000 wrote:
Tychicus wrote:People who don't believe "gay marriage" is a good idea are not out to take away someone's "civil right" to marry.
One of the "civil rights" issues is whether or not a florist has the right to refuse service to a gay couple's marriage. Or a baker. As I've said earlier this is a murky issue. I understand both sides. I don't believe a simplistic answer on one side or the other takes into consideration how complicated it is.
I totally agree with this. It would be better if neither side based their position on "civil rights". Or better yet if there weren't "sides" in the first place. All of us, after all, have one thing in common.
i do not agree that the civil rights issue is so complex. It seems to me that the simple recognition that a persons private property is that which truly belongs to himself, and that therefore he has the right to dispose of it as he pleases - even if that involves discrimination - solves this issue. In saying this, I am following the same line of reasoning as John Locke in his second treatise on civil government. I am not saying this view is right simply because it is the classical understanding, but rather be because it proceeds from the notion that a mans body belongs to himself, and that his body is not in some way partially owned by others. It can be argued that, in principle, denying this proposition leads inevitably to self contradictory ideas (Hans herman hoppe is well known for making this argument). Thus far, i have not seen anyone on this thread express any reason why this classical understanding might be flawed, or in error- let alone offer a better alternative rational for a different approach. Would anyone wish to take on the task of challenging this classic understanding?

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by steve7150 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:54 am

Steve7150 said: It's seems like most people are in their own little universe and having the right to a happy life in our private universes is where this new morality is going.



Um. That's the Declaration of Independence.

To clarify. The definition of "marriage" we are debating is a legal issue. And by legal, I am speaking about constitutional law. Arguments from tradition and history are not how decisions are made. We can petition the publishers of dictionaries about what definition they use. We can stand firm in our religious tradition. But this issue, both semantics, and legal, is being settled constitutionally.








Re the first comment i was referring to degrees of obsessiveness with people drifting off into their own universes because of kids being wired almost every second.

Re marriage , constitutional law will guide the culture about the definition of a civil marriage but that doesn't mean it's a biblical marriage. Our culture supports many things that the bible frowns upon, gay marriage would just add to the list.

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”