Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Their bodies do NOT fit the intended design for marriage, and thus, cannot in any way begin to meet the basic requirements for marriage.

I agree with you for the most part in all that you put down above. However, once again, the gay marriage issues is not about a religious acceptance or a desire to change what marriage is in God's eye. That we cannot do and I agree gay marriage goes against God. The point is whether gay marriage can be accepted in CIVIL society. Let's face it. Anyone can be "married" by the court and never see the inside of a church or need a church officiator to pronounce their marriage valid. I believe even God honors a "court" marriage as a marriage. I'd go as far as to say any promise made to the opposite sex in regard to "marriage" apart from a church or court would be honored by God. (of course being an adult)

So then the question remains, why can not a gay couple not be in a union that allows for the same perks that civil law affords a married couple? Explain that to me apart from anything 'God'. How can a government, promoting the ousting of God on the whole, have any legal ground on what "marriage" is without leaning on God? I don't think there is one gay couple arguing with God whether their union is Godly and right. If there is, they are deluded in their thinking.

Jac3510 wrote:Put simply: even in your old age, your marriage is theoretically capable of fulfilling its intended design. Theirs is not, and thus, the difference.

Again this is presupposing the point is a religious acceptance to "marriage".

Jac3510 wrote:With regard to your final point, while marriage can certainly teach us a lot about our relationship with Christ, and while it may ILLUSTRATE His relationship to the Church, there is no basis for saying that is its fundamental purpose. We do see, however, that marriage is the foundation of the family and the means by which it is produced. That God can use that primary institution to teach us something about Himself tells us something about God, not about the institution itself.

I agree, but Gen. 2:18 seems to give God's initial reason for "marriage". Its purpose extends out from there.
.
.

jac wrote:God made sex fun to encourage people to engage as He intended it.

Why don't we see sex as having multiple functions? It *does* produce children. However, sex in animals certainly produces the desired result without having the fun part. God certainly doesn't need to make sex fun in order to encourage animals to engage in sex and produce.

It seems that Solomon sure had the idea of sex other than simply for bearing children!!

I guess I am still quibbling about the use of the word "perks"....as if those are just some sort of by-products or side effects instead of part of the entire package....but perhaps that's will always be a difference between genders (or wishful thinking!)

bav,

if you want to put forward a non-religious rebuttal to my non-religious argument, feel free. As it stands, you are responding to me on religious grounds, and as such, you aren't interacting with my points. I don't need one word of the Bible to make any of the arguments I have.

Zoe,

There is a difference in a purpose and The Purpose. In any case, I'm making a philosophical distinction between substance and accident. A substance is what a thing IS. An accident is what is in a thing. Take me for example. I am, by nature, a male human being. I also have light brown hair. The fact that I have hair (rather than being bald) and that my hair is brown (rather than black) are both accidents. I don't mean "accident" in the sense of "non-intended," as if, "Oh, I had an accident today!" I mean it in the philosophical sense--a characteristic, if you will.

I'm sure you would agree that I am not defined by the presence of my hair or its color. I am me, regardless. Likewise, sex is not defined by the pleasure it brings. The pleasure is the accident. The substance is the union that produces children. This is true even if any particular sexual act doesn't produce children. That union produces lots of other things, too (stronger bonds, emotional attachments, physical pleasure, etc.), but those are all accidents rather than the substance. When you make the accident the substance and the substance the accident, as we have done in our culture, you get all kinds of problems--arguments for gay marriage being the least of them.

OK,

NOw maybe I am misunderstanding the usage of the word and how you are intending it, but when I hear you use the word accident I am hearing that the pleasure in sex wasn't intended by God, which does seem bizarre.

FOr example, food is certainly meant to be nutritious, but I wouldn't consider the pleasure in tasting the food to be an accident. (unless, as I mentioned before, I am misunderstanding your usage) While it's *purpose* is to nourish our bodies, I wouldn't claim that the pleasure it brings is not intended or meant by God. I would say that God intends for us to enjoy that which is nourishing. While it can be nourishing while not tasting good, it is a far cry from what is was meant to be.

Does that make sense? I don't think we can separate the two. We are physical beings and we delight in the physical.

I don't see this as providing any argument for gay marriage...what *should* be is the physical union with both its pleasure and its procreation.

Actually, zoe, the food example is very good. In the philosophical sense of the word, the taste of a food is its accident. An accidental feature just stands in opposition to its primary feature or, better, its essence. So, for example, the color of wood is accidental, along with its hardness, health, etc. The wood itself is its essence. The redness and ripeness of an apple are accidents; the fact that it is an apple is its essence.

Here is a wikipedia article to help clarify what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28philosophy%29

I'd be interested in your thoughts after you read that.

Hmm, I understand your meaning better, but I think (ha...think being the operative word, not being the philosophical wizard) I still disagree.

COrrect me if I am wrong...but the essence of an accidental property is that is could be slightly different and not affect the inherent purpose. THe example they use in the Wiki article is the chair (wood, palstic, metal...it stilll supports). It seems from that description that the "accidental" properties, then don't really matter. And that still bugs me.

However, that does beg the question of what *is* the essence. In the case of food, while we could argue that the primary essence is nourishment, and food can be completely tasteless and yet still perform the funciton, it still remains to be seen whether it is accomplishing is full purpose or even whether it can exist with multiple purposes, each of which complement the other and *shouldn't* be without the other. (should we go through life a glutton? eating without discretion? of course not....should we eat without using well seasoned and tasty foods? most would agree that we need not sacrifice one purpose from the other...each purpose can exist fully and indeed complement each other) Dry, tasteless food, while it may contain all the nutrients, affects us...it shouldn't be. Food is nourishing but food gives us pleasure...and that is as it should be.

In that regard, I dont' think we can use the example of the chair....or perhaps we can argue that a chair shouldn't just support but be part of a pleasant living space. Really, then, it does depend on what we consider the full purpose or essence of that thing! (doesn't it?)

If we consider physical affection and sex as being part of a proper relationship as well as procreation, I don't see how the pleasure can be considered not part of the essence of the act. (at least with reagrd to how it should be).

Maybe I am just balking at the use of the word perk, as if it were just an enjoyable side effect, rather than part of the intended plan.

Jac3510 wrote:bav,

if you want to put forward a non-religious rebuttal to my non-religious argument, feel free. As it stands, you are responding to me on religious grounds, and as such, you aren't interacting with my points. I don't need one word of the Bible to make any of the arguments I have.

I don't get how you think I'm using religion as a rebuttal, but then I'm not a scholar like you. I simply made a point that Gen. 2:18 makes God's initial intention of Eve that Man would not be alone. It's not as you have promoted, for procreation. Procreation is an accident. The other text I mentioned but couldn't think of the exact text is 1 Corinthians 7:8,9. The writer seems to suggest marriage take place if we cannot control our sexual desires. What is the main reason for marriage so far in these two texts? 1. Companionship. 2. Sex.
If we are to discuss this using non-religious rebuttals, how and where did the argument that sex in marriage is second to family as the objective?

My whole point is aside from religion. The point the Gay community is looking to make is that they want the same CIVIL rights afforded Hetero couples in marriage. Is that not clear to you? Your contention that marriage is a union of male and female as "marriage" comes from where? You say, society. (I think you mentioned it) However what society without religious bias has made that distinction and then tagged CIVIL rights to it? In my limited and unscholarly mind, none. You may have all the answers, but none can be made without a basis on Christian belief.
.
.

WARNING: SOME DELICATE MATERIAL IN THIS POST!

Zoe,

Let me tweak something you said:

COrrect me if I am wrong...but the essence of an accidental property is that is could be slightly different and not affect the inherent purpose.

Note the underlined words. That's very close, but just a little off. It is very close in that it can be right in many ways, but off in that it misses an important nuance. Change those words to not affect what it basically is and you have a better statement.

A wood, metal, and plastic chair are all chairs. A bald man and a man with hair are both men. Red, blonde, and brunette hair is all hair. Thus. wood, metal, plastic, baldness, and haircolor are all accidental properties. Against this would be the essential property of the thing--that is, the property that is part of the thing's essence.

Look at it this way: if you take away or change some aspect of a thing, is the thing still what it was before? If not, you have an essential property. If so, you have an accidental property.

Applying this to sex, there are some things that are obvious. If you take away one person but leave the biological conclusion (as in masturbation), do you still have sex? Obviously not, so we see that two individuals are required for sex (this, by the way, would form a basis for a philosophical argument against polygamy, but we'll save that for another thread).

Now, let's get a bit more controversial and try to be as polite as we can. What if the same act we call masturbation that we decided was not sex is now done with two people? Suppose rather than a person doing that to themselves, someone else does that to them? Is that sex? Before you jump to an answer either way, imagine a virgin girl engages in that activity. Would she still be a virgin? I think so, therefore, I'm forced to conclude this act is not sex. Now let's change the situation so that instead of dealing with hands, we are dealing with mouths. By the same logic, we still don't have have sex proper (again, unless you believe that such an act results in a person losing their virginity). So it seems that not only must there be two people involved, but those two people's genitals must be involved.

Before we go any further, let me deal with an unnecessary "Christian" objection. Some may complain that if I say these acts are not really sex, then I am endorsing them, or saying, in some sense, that they are OK to practice outside of marriage. I AM NOT. At the end of this, when I deal with privations, I will show why.

The interesting thing about the conclusion about the above paragraph is we see that even "gay sex" doesn't really exist. What gay couples do (on either side) is absolutely just the same as what naughty teenagers two when they don't want to actually have sex. By itself, this provides an argument against the existence of gay marriage. But now we are getting ahead of ourselves.

So the essence of sex is the biological union (through the genitals) of a man and a woman. It is exactly here that procreation comes in. What is the purpose of the male and female sexual organs? Do they exist not for the express purpose of creating children? Unless you are going to argue that human sexual organs and those of most of the animal kingdom are essentially different--such that they don't even have the same thing we have and vice versa--it is absolutely evident by all of nature that the very reason those organs exist is for procreation.

Thus, we see that the primary purpose for sex in procreation.

NOW - does that mean that there are no other sub-purposes? Does that mean that the fact that sex is enjoyable or brings you closer to your partner or a myriad of other things mean that those things are NOT important? OF COURSE NOT. Do not confuse accidental properties with non-important properties. I happen to find the taste of food very important. In fact, it is the accidental properties of things that provide 99% of the context for our lives. Jesus Christ used the accidental properties of things to explain the Kingdom of Heaven. I am NOT saying accidental properties are a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing. Any car salesman who has ever lost a sale because he didn't have a red, rather than blue, car on the lost can tell you that accidental properties are important. But it would be absurd to say that just because he didn't have the red car, he didn't have a car.

Note, again, that just because any particular male/female sexual encounter doesn't result in children (whether it is because it just didn't happen that time or because one of them is incapable for whatever reason) doesn't mean that what they have experienced is not sex in the proper sense of the word. It just means it didn't happen that time. Whether or not there are physical barriers that keep their organs from accomplishing their intended purpose is not the issue.

As a final note, what about those other "sex acts"? Are they OK? I'll leave it to each married couple to decide what is or is not OK within the bounds of their marriage, but I think it is evident that no such act is OK outside of those bounds. The reason is that all such acts are derivatives of sex itself. That is, these acts have taken sex and taken away its essential property and yet maintained one of the accidents--yet the accidents derive directly and completely from the essence of the act itself. If sex is to be within marriage, and I think we all agree it is, then it follows that that which comes from sex or is derived from it ought to be within the bounds of marriage. Our culture has it backwards. These sex acts do not precede sex--they come after it, in the logical sense. If sex itself didn't exist, then those acts would not, just as if eyes did not exist then neither would blindness. Just as blindness is a privation of sight, so these sex acts require a privation of sex itself.

Sorry for the length, I hope that helps clear things up.

BavarianWheels wrote:I don't get how you think I'm using religion as a rebuttal, but then I'm not a scholar like you. I simply made a point that Gen. 2:18 makes God's initial intention of Eve that Man would not be alone. It's not as you have promoted, for procreation. Procreation is an accident. The other text I mentioned but couldn't think of the exact text is 1 Corinthians 7:8,9. The writer seems to suggest marriage take place if we cannot control our sexual desires. What is the main reason for marriage so far in these two texts? 1. Companionship. 2. Sex.
If we are to discuss this using non-religious rebuttals, how and where did the argument that sex in marriage is second to family as the objective?

My whole point is aside from religion. The point the Gay community is looking to make is that they want the same CIVIL rights afforded Hetero couples in marriage. Is that not clear to you? Your contention that marriage is a union of male and female as "marriage" comes from where? You say, society. (I think you mentioned it) However what society without religious bias has made that distinction and then tagged CIVIL rights to it? In my limited and unscholarly mind, none. You may have all the answers, but none can be made without a basis on Christian belief.
.
.

Bav, if you can prove that the purpose of sex is so that man ought not be alone without reference to Scripture, then I'm all up for hearing it. As it stands, I have made a non-religious, secular argument. You responded with Scripture.

Look at it this way: if I were an atheist making these same arguments (and I can introduce you to one who does), would your biblical arguments provide any rational grounds for discussion? No, as they are strictly religious in nature.

As far as my argument goes, it is most certainly NOT from society. Read me again. It is from philosophy and biology. I also provided a reductio ad absurdum as to why it is logically impossible for a person who believes in human liberty to consistently hold to the possibility of gay marriage. Again, if you want to deal with my arguments proper, feel free.

Jac3510 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:I don't get how you think I'm using religion as a rebuttal, but then I'm not a scholar like you. I simply made a point that Gen. 2:18 makes God's initial intention of Eve that Man would not be alone. It's not as you have promoted, for procreation. Procreation is an accident. The other text I mentioned but couldn't think of the exact text is 1 Corinthians 7:8,9. The writer seems to suggest marriage take place if we cannot control our sexual desires. What is the main reason for marriage so far in these two texts? 1. Companionship. 2. Sex.
If we are to discuss this using non-religious rebuttals, how and where did the argument that sex in marriage is second to family as the objective?

My whole point is aside from religion. The point the Gay community is looking to make is that they want the same CIVIL rights afforded Hetero couples in marriage. Is that not clear to you? Your contention that marriage is a union of male and female as "marriage" comes from where? You say, society. (I think you mentioned it) However what society without religious bias has made that distinction and then tagged CIVIL rights to it? In my limited and unscholarly mind, none. You may have all the answers, but none can be made without a basis on Christian belief.
.
.

Bav, if you can prove that the purpose of sex is so that man ought not be alone without reference to Scripture, then I'm all up for hearing it. As it stands, I have made a non-religious, secular argument. You responded with Scripture.

Look at it this way: if I were an atheist making these same arguments (and I can introduce you to one who does), would your biblical arguments provide any rational grounds for discussion? No, as they are strictly religious in nature.

As far as my argument goes, it is most certainly NOT from society. Read me again. It is from philosophy and biology. I also provided a reductio ad absurdum as to why it is logically impossible for a person who believes in human liberty to consistently hold to the possibility of gay marriage. Again, if you want to deal with my arguments proper, feel free.

I simply made the connection earlier to Genesis and God's initial purpose because you made the statement (as you continue to make) that the purpose of marriage and therefore sex, is for family and procreation. I gave you a text because you ARE a Christian defending "marriage".

I suppose the point for me is that it is impossible to argue against gay marriage without leaning on God's law. That is the only moral basis that makes it "wrong" otherwise in the absence of God, there is no fact of right and wrong, but rather a point of good and not-so-good. A secular society can dictate homosexuality as wrong, but only in THAT society. The majority would have to agree. But that doesn't make it so for every society and it doesn't make it Truth. So then, why can't a couple that is gay have the same civil rights as a hetero couple in secular society where being gay is not unlawful? We are talking about tax breaks, last rites, who gets who's estate after death...all CIVIL rights. It's simply not a question about sex. If it's wrong to be homosexual, then make it illegal. THEN society has a point to stand on to keep gays from marrying.

I'm off to my legalistic church.
.
.

I suppose the point for me is that it is impossible to argue against gay marriage without leaning on God's law.

Uhm . . . this entire thread I've been making an argument against gay marriage without leaning on God's law. Just because you choose to ignore the argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've not even argued for the immorality of gay marriage. I've simply argued that it is a contradiction in terms and thus cannot exist (if we are to uphold the law of non-contradiction anyway).

NOt a problem, Jac, glad you cleared it up. Sometimes it's just a matter of clarifying the meanings of words.

I agree with what you are saying.

Without understanding where the idea of marriage comes from, we are left with no concept of marriage....and it does become a free for all. POlygamy (which, I may disagree here with whether polygamy automatically is shut out of the discussion of sex), group "marriage" of any sort, still invovles sex of some kind, still invovles some level of intimacy.

If we do start "Redfining" marriage, we are not left with any definition other than this idea of love and commitment between people, involving some act of sexual and personal intimacy. We have no basis of excluding anybody.

If we do start "Redfining" marriage, we are not left with any definition other than this idea of love and commitment between people, involving some act of sexual and personal intimacy. We have no basis of excluding anybody.

Absolutely 100% correct. Legally, it's not hard to see how that would lead to a dysfunctional society. The question of a proper definition, then, comes up, which is the point I was trying to make.

The good news, I think, is that I suspect this argument is going to become more popular. Conservatives by and large have not been effective at presenting a sound case against gay marriage to the public, falling, as we have a tendency to do, back on the Bible. But much like how to pro-life arguments are now starting to gain traction both philosophically and publicly, I see much of the same thing happening with this issue. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later, before something on the scale of Roe v. Wade happens . . .

Domestic Partnership / Civil Union + All the rights of Marriage = Win

Did you even read the thread, Imp?

One of the things that bothers me about ideologues, whether conservative or liberal, is when they spew their talking points without giving their own views the benefit of a full philosophical analysis before submitting to it. I realize doing that is hard work, and most people these days are intellectually lazy, but if you really think one line is sufficient to discount centuries of precedent and, more importantly, a finely nuanced treatment of any given subject, then there's nothing for us to talk about. If all you want to do is post your own views rather than engage in discussion--which is kind of the point of a discussion board--then use your own blog.

Since I really don't expect you to slog your way through the position presented here, I'll just ask you a very simple question that was never hinted at during this particular debate:

How can gay marriage be good when the average life expectancy of a gay man in a monogamous gay relationship is only 41? In fact, how is it that gay men who are never "married" (that is, develop a long term monogamous relationship) have a median age of death of 42; that is, that is, if gay marriage is so good, why do gay married men die earlier than single gay men??? What is it about being in a gay marriage that shortens your lifespan? In fact, given that the median age of death for a married man is 75, Why should society support something that cuts your life expectancy in half?

By the way, you should note that these numbers are based on those who never contract AIDS. Of those who do, married or not, the median age of death is 39 . . . amazingly, AIDS only cuts the average gay man's life short by three years; it only cuts those in a monogamous, long-term relationship down by two . . .

The bottom line is simple, Imp. While we have a very sophisticated and philosophically nuanced argument against gay marriage, in the end, we can just point out that it is lethal, and on that grounds alone, it is something that should be discouraged.