JosephM

Welcome Collim306, Good to hear from you and glad to hear you are enjoying some of Spong's books. Thanks for sharing your take on his writings and part of your own journey. Joseph

My apologies to you Neon. I find nothing wrong with your sexuality. The issue is marriage definition not your sexuality. Disagreement is not intolerance. Paul, This is a view for which i offer no empirical evidence. However i will say a couple things that seem to make some sense at least to myself since you ask. To accept same sex marriages at this time in my view would pose a blanket of concerns for government regulations the least of which includes taxation and a host of other ripple effects that would then require the equal treatment of spouses for gays and lesbians that society has purposely previously denied to promote families as defined by a man and a woman with the hopes of continued procreation and a more balanced raising of children within its beliefs. I do not deny that religion alone is a big reason for many. However, i don't believe it is for me as i put no more emphasis on the Bible as God speaking to us than any other book that speaks to me. Our state has a favored conception of marriage for more than just religious reasons. It sees family and procreation as important to its continuance. Because of this it shows favor to such in many ways and imo, rightfully so because that is part of civilized societies function. ( to do those things it sees as most beneficial to its view of society) This on the surface seem unfair to some but equality across the board will not always give society what it is looking for. Of course not all married couples can procreate but the state has no advance knowledge of such nor would it be appropriate for them to violate privacy imo by doing so. And besides, even without children it seems to me that the image presented to other children of a man and woman in marriage as the norm is a more balanced image to society as it exists here to promote that continuance. Looking at nature we see in animals and insects that each has a position assigned whether by birth or its societal group. All cannot be treated equal for the good of the whole. Some must give up their lives to protect the group while some do nothing but produce young. And others nothing but gather food, etc... Some are rewarded more favorably than others. Would WE ASK ...IS THAT FAIR? Now there is much debate and argument on both sides of the issue at this time. I do not say that to ban same sex marriage is right or wrong, logical or illogical, fair or unfair. I can only say that my choice for society at this time is against. If yours is for it then so be it and let us live in peace with our differences. Does that make me homophobic or a bigot? I don't think so, my brother is gay and a more loving, thoughtful and finer human being i have not yet met and i love him dearly. He has never to my knowledge demanded i accept same sex marriages and he has solved all of the other problems with my assistance related to a male partner (inheritance, medical issues, beneficiaries, etc.) except taxes through wisdom and compliance within the present system of society. Joseph

i agree that there is a sense of unfairness when it comes to those issues of tax, inheritance, medical privileged, etc. All of those things can be addressed and solved separately if society dictates. However decisions by government are not always in my personal sense of fairness because their decisions are meant to do the good for what they see as the most people and the prevailing view of society itself. Unfortunately the consequences will not always be equally burdened by the people. IE When i owned a small business, i got no tax breaks even though i employed 5 people. Yet to entice those who employed 50 or more they gave then exemptions from certain taxes for 5 years to establish themselves here. That to me is not fair to 10 of us small businessmen who together employ 50 and have to bear the burden of the larger. But that is life and the authority and role tthat government plays for the good of the whole. So yes there are inequalities of which some have been resolved and hopefully some of these you mention will be addressed to the satisfaction of the many but recognizing same sex marriages as the norm identical to that between a man and a woman to me is not an equality issue nor do i intuit its acceptance as the norm as a positive benefit to future society here but that is just my non religious opinion and i am not here to convince anyone it is other than that.. Joseph

We now have 8 Site Sponsors and 4 more openings to carry us through to next October. I will not be soliciting volunteers after this month til Oct 1st of next year.

George, Equality does not apply to everything. Marriage is not a right. it is a defined privilege reserved by society here at present to a man and woman. What if we had a person who wants to marry an animal? Do we recognize that? How about mutiple partner mixtures? Do we change the definition to whatever sounds like equality as long as it appears to do me no harm? I think not. You don't have to be homophobic to believe that same sex marriage may not be in the best interest of our society. Joseph Just for the record. My family includes gays whom i love dearly and i wouldn't try to change a thing concerning their identity..

George, The constitution grants no such right as recognizing same sex marriages. Perhaps you can make a case that we treat people different tax-wise and otherwise based on their marital status but marriage was defined before the constitution was signed and it is meant to change no such thing.as that definition. Marriage is not strictly a religious view in this country though it may be held such by many. We deny people all kinds of rights based on what we feel are the good of the whole society whether a religious slant exists or not. . Things aren't going to be fair to everybody nor are they equal for everybody in a society such as ours. You said in another post " I would suggest that if the premise is unsound, then the conclusions that follow from it would also be unsound." That itself is a logical fallacy for sure see Wiki..on logical fallacies. Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false. joseph

George, It seems to me that people make up society and have views, opinions and convictions. It is the consensus (mostly but not always) of those views, opinions and convictions, whether one agrees with them or not, that move the rules of society. Each member of a free society has a right to influence society which does indeed tell members of that society what they can and cannot do based on that consensus of convictions, religious or otherwise. So George while you can say "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.", in reality society and its members, in my view, has been given that very right to do just that very thing and it is based on individual convictions, religious or otherwise. And i might add, this is whether they appear rational or irrational, in truth or in error to some, and also even if they cause harm to some. I think history speaks to this. Joseph

George, that is not the authors premise in this article. But anyway my point is well summarized by Dennis above this post. My only point or premise was that rational arguments exist against same sex marriages and to classify all them as irrational is as Dennis says "is unnecessarily pejorative , and likely to set the conversation back rather than move it forward." And of course i also believe that within the 43 pages wrtiten in the article referenced, rational arguments exist. Your initial statement "none of the arguments against same-sex marriage are rational. They are emotional reactions and should be understood as such." is what triggered and has been the point of my contention and never whether same sex marriages should be banned or not. Joseph

George, Read it if you are interested. The author is the one that is attempting to answer the supposed logic of your statement, not me. joseph PS. I am no logic major but it sounds to me like your statement "Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason." may be a propositional fallacy in logic. If you disagree, i have no objection as i am no expert in logic analysis.

George , i believe that counterpoint is addressed starting at page 265 and developed and continued on the next few pages.

Thanks dblad for your eloquent grasp of the situation. I believe you understand my point exactly. Neon, Never siad i agreeded OR disagreed with any of his statements. Only said "I believe the writer has used his full possession of reasoning to come to the conclusions he has and those reasons, in my view, are not without some merit or sense of soundness.." Also said his arguments wasn't a religious argument. My point remains as originally stated. that rational is subjective and whether one agrees or not , there are rational arguments against . DCJ referenced the article which contained more than a few of them . I read it and agree it uses reason and logical arguments, howbeit not in the opinion of all readers. I submitted specific pages at the insistence of GeorgeW. You are the one who specifically implied because you disagreed with his arguments that the author is not rational and that his argument is fueled by.... ....." his own religious-fueled bigotry" to describe him. i have nothing more to say to you or in defense of my point. It is difficult to discuss such issues with one who resorts to such name calling of one that presents an opposing argument. My posts speak for themselves and it seems to me, imo, you are not reading them thoroughly. Joseph

Sorry Neon, I don't know Robert George well enough to say his rationality is "based in his own religious-fueled bigotry" as you imply. I am aware of the stance or official position of the APA and also of many of their members who do not agree with their position. Its a complex matter with much strong disagreement that won't be solved by me taking either side or presenting arguments of others with credentials. Anyway, it seems to me from your words in your last post that you have set up a dividing line which will be attacked on the grounds of not being "rational" and "bigotry" should i present anymore in disagreement . Thanks for the conversation but i will pass. Joseph

George, Try page 260-263 "How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage? You may have to read the page 246 to understand the view they are referring to when they refer to the revisionist view. Joseph Neon, You say his argument rests on the argument "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" line of "reasoning. I don't think so because religion is only one small facet of the writing. ( a couple paragraphs out of 43 pages.) The argument presented is not about the Bible or what Jesus and Paul said that you need to continue making it only a religious issue. in fact religion only appears as a small final mention point before the conclusion and purposely so. I quote Doesn’t Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?.... "This objection comes at the end for a reason. By now, as promised in the introduction, this Article has made a case for enshrining the conjugal view of marriage and addressed many theoretical and practical objections to it, without appeals to revelation or religious authority of any type." At least that is the way i see it, Joseph PS George, I think you will find all 43 pages are worth reading to get a better view of their logic and reasoning even if one disagrees with their logic/reasoning .

NEON You are quoting a post that refers to different article. Read it and see if you come to a different conclusion. Joseph

George, Most all of his points while i may or may not agree with him use his best capacity for sound reasoniong and rational thought. Me providing a particular statement is irrelevant to my point. I am not advocating an against position. Only indicating there is understanding to be gained by not assuming there are no rational arguments against.

Thanks for the clarification Myron, Presently, there is a system set up for people to comment on articles and essays on the home page that are written by anyone who submitted the article or essay and was approved. This can be found by clicking on "Read More" on the preview of the article, essay, or resource on the home page . The author there has the ability to approve or disapproves comments readers wish to make and are submitted at the bottom of the article.. It is not their intention to divert their readers here. However, people are certainly welcome to start up a thread in the discussion board here relating to any article from the main site referencing the article and opening up here for discussion in an appropriate area such as Debate and Dialog if it is to be debated or the Progressive Christianity if supporting comments. Unfortunately, i think our discussion board was easier to find on the old homepage and i have notified the organization twice on that point. I believe the changes to the new format has created some problems that will take a while to work out As far as starting a separate forum for such here, the moderatoring team is currently considering this option and we will get back to you shortly. JosephM

George, You certainly won't get one from me but i do think the arguments in the long article are rational. Rational doesn't mean we agree. I believe the writer has used his full possession of reasoning to come to the conclusions he has and those reasons, in my view, are not without some merit or sense of soundness. Disagreement with his meticulous reasoning doesn't make it irrational. Because your view differs does not make you rational and him (Girgis, Sherif , Princeton University Department of Philosophy) irrational. That was my only point. You sound to me pretty closed (even perhaps pretty emotional on the issue) without reading his entire essay. But i could be mistaken as i sometimes am, so i will just drop it. Joseph

Neon, I do think they are subjective beliefs. I would not be for banning interracial marriage but i support the right of society to decide the issue whether i am in agreement or not. Would i vote to overturn such? Yes , of course.

George, I am not at all interested in a debate or presenting an argument. A summariy already exists at the beginning in the article and then goes into detail in the pages that follow. My point remains, you made the statement "none of the arguments against same-sex marriage are rational. They are emotional reactions and should be understood as such." (i emphasized none) I commented that you are hanging yourself out on a limb with that statement. I don't share the belief that there are no rational arguments and i believe DCJ does likewise. it appears to me that you are closed on the issue that there are. So we presented you with what seemed to us a rational rather than emotional argument that may be perhaps as Myron points out old thinking. But regardless, thinking that doesn't agree with your present view i personally wouldn't call not rational without a more thorough investigation.. Joseph Myron, Sorry, but i fail to see the applicability of point 6 to the article. i am not advocating either side of the issue at hand, just acknowledging that there exists rational thought on both sides of the issue. PC's 8 points do not speak , in my view, to either side of the issue of recognizing same sex marriages as a legitimate institution in society. Understanding on both sides to me is more valuable than statements such as there are no rational arguments that exist. Joseph

George, Just because you found it not a "rational argument", i would ask.... Does that make it so? Take a read of DCJ's article quoted above and tell me if it is more or less rational or not at all? It has better credentials than my reference and it appears most rational to me as an argument against. Whether i would agree or not is another matter. DCJ, Thanks for the input and reference.

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective. Joseph

While i support the ability to grant to same-sex couples the dignity and sanction of many of the benefits of officially recognized marriages , i also support the right of a society/nation to determine its own rules of acceptance of what it deems appropriate and best for its evolution even if that disagrees with my personal views . Joseph George, Rational is subjective. IMO, you go out on a limb saying NONE of the arguments against are even rational.

Thanks to all those who have pledged and sent in their support so far . We now have 7 Site Sponsors and only 5 more openings for Site Sponsors to fill by the end of the month to cover our expenses til next October. Joseph

George, Technically a fetus in humans is defined as " the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. (though that time may be arguably different) The word living is used in contrast to a dead fetus that is no longer a living organism. I used the word fetus to exclude the period of time from fertilization to the point that it is recognizable as a human to science. (in respect to having a basic structural resemblance to the adult. But don't get too technical on me as this could open up a "bag of worms" to my Poll.

Vote if you are interested in other member positions on the issue. Your vote is not made public.