As with most arguments/debates, one side "wins" and the other "loses" when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument.I read this claim on another blog that someone pointed me to and was amazed. The discussion was on the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage. And it appears as if the claim by a self-professed Christian was that an argument can be properly determined by asking those who listen which is the most rational or moral argument. That is, truth by vote.
It is certain that you can ask an audience listening to a debate "Which argument made the most rational or moral sense?" and get an answer. (It is, of course, most likely that you will get a divided answer, but an answer just the same.) And in a generic, formal sense, it might be said, based on this scheme, that the one with the most votes "won the debate". What cannot be said was that the one with the most votes was right.
I would hope, even to this blogger, that it is abundantly clear that the second -- the right or wrong of the argument -- cannot be determined by public opinion. Any Christian who has read his or her Bible will know that 1) Christianity is right and 2) the world will not like it. Paul is not hazy when he affirms, "The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). Any questions? Well, he wasn't done. "Since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:21-25). Let's see ... Jews and Gentiles vote "No" on this message. That leaves ... no one. All that is left is "those who are called". If truth is a matter of voting -- by determining the case that appeals to those listening as the most rational or moral -- then we can all give up our Gospel and go home.
It is important to be ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3). It is wise to be ready to do so as rationally and coherently as possible. Bad arguments do not serve well. But in the end, truth is not up for a vote. It isn't a matter of the most appealing arguments. It isn't a popularity contest. Like today's "same-sex marriage" debate, it isn't about what the culture thinks it should do that actually determines what is right. Don't fall into that trap. Because in that pit you carefully remove the Christian faith. I'm pretty sure that genuine Christians aren't going to fall for that.
Update
Good news, folks. The author of that blog I referenced does not believe that Truth is determined by vote. However, since so many do believe that is the case and do put so much stock in whose arguments are swaying the public opinion, and since the Bible is abundantly clear that genuine spiritual truth will not be acceptable to those hostile to God, the warning still stands. There are those who believe that the correct argument is whatever the majority thinks it is. Don't fall for that.
38 comments:
Since you're quoting me, allow me to respond/clarify:
The point of my post is that your "side" does not even appear to recognize that you are losing this debate or why. I was, of course, not saying, "More people agree with me, therefore, this is The One Right Moral Answer." That was not the point. Any more than your "side" was right when it was in the majority.
The point was/is, you all are losing this debate because your argument seems the least rational/most immoral and people are rejecting your answers.
"Bad arguments do not serve well," indeed, that was my point.
Do you understand that, now?
Keep in mind: Genuine Christians would not make false claims or bad innuendo.
Stan...
Let's see ... Jews and Gentiles vote "No" on this message. That leaves ... no one. All that is left is "those who are called". If truth is a matter of voting -- by determining the case that appeals to those listening as the most rational or moral -- then we can all give up our Gospel and go home.
By that measure, then, are you suggesting that when the majority was in agreement with you (for the last several millenia?), that you were probably mistaken?
OR, is it the case that you (like me) were not making the claim that just because the majority agreed with you, that you were right?
It comes down to this (and if you will read my ACTUAL words hopefully you can understand my ACTUAL point):
For years, your arguments (such as they were) were more persuasive on this topic. People were starting with the same biases, for the most part, and same ignorances and, given the lack of a cohesive, rational and moral argument against your position (my former position), you were able to "win" the popular debate.
But over the last generation, folk on the marriage equity side were able to convincingly make the case that there is no rational harm in encouraging gay folk to marry and, indeed, by ALL appearances, it seems objectively GOOD to encourage gay folk to marry, that marriage is the healthy, wholesome, pure place to express one's God-given sexuality. The argument was made, "Just look at their lives - these are your brothers, your sisters, your grandmothers and grandfathers, your neighbors... they're not intent on evil, they just want the right to marry, just as straight folk marry..."
And that argument has caught on. On the face of it, it seems extremely moral and rational - why WOULDN'T we encourage and support such behavior??
Because you all can't rationally and morally address these arguments and deal with these questions - and indeed, because of the rather overtly immoral and arrogant way you have even tried to do so - you are losing this argument.
THAT was the point, not that "the majority = truth." If you want to argue, Stan, argue with integrity and without the lame attempts at strawman demonization. THAT is also part of the reason you've (collectively) lost this argument - your methods are immoral and irrational.
There is no such thing as "gay" marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The homos are out to destroy marriage. Just because during most of history the majority agreed with God about marriage doesn't mean they were wrong. Of course, the kind of person who thinks he knows better than God won't listen to Him, or anyone else. Enjoy your rebellion, fools, it will be short and costly.
First, Dan, let me say that because it is your blog that I referenced, I've given you more latitude to comment than usual. Don't expect it to continue.
Now, to address your comments. First, my "side" is not "losing this debate". If "losing this debate" is defined as "not convincing the public", then we are, but that is not what determines if our "side" is right or not. That was my point. The veracity of a position is not determined by who agrees with it.
Second, I did not make a false claim. I said "it appears" that you're making this claim (of truth by vote). That is, at no time do you address the very real question of "Yes, the public is in disagreement with this position, but is it correct?" (Statement of fact. You do not address that.) So it appears (the word I used) that you're claiming that the truth of the argument can rightly be settled by the public response to it.
Third, at no time did I suggest, hint, recommend, or even consider the possibility that a majority agreement denies the validity of a position. That, in all candor, is a stupid suggestion. It is, in fact, precisely contrary to my post. My post said that majority agreement does not determine truth.
Indeed, the point I was making was that Truth is not determined by "the more persuasive argument".
I will also point out that "you all can't rationally and morally address these arguments and deal with these questions" is a lie, blatant and bald-faced. It is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for this post. You are determining what is true based on "the more persuasive argument" and denying fundamentally (explicitly) that we offer any rational or moral argument. Your denial doesn't make it so. Their acceptance of your view doesn't make it true. That was the point. You appear to still be missing it.
Continuing with Dan's comments:
I did not argue in the post but will here that your argument is not an argument. The facts (not opinions, preferences, biases, "gut feelings" -- facts) are that all of history has maintained the same definition of the concept of marriage. At no time in recorded history has any society regarded marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman. Their practices in that marriage varied greatly. Sometimes the man married a woman and then married another woman and then another woman. But it was still "a man and a woman". Sometimes wives were treated well and sometimes like chattel. Weddings varied. Methods of determining who married who varied. But always at the core the definition has always been without variation "the union of a man and a woman."
Beyond history, all of the biblical texts on the subject regard marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It was stated so at the beginning (Gen 2), confirmed by Christ when He lived (Matt 19), and agreed upon by Paul in Ephesians 5. There are no examples of anything remotely related to a marriage that is anything except male and female. All references to marriage are to "husband" and "wife", "man" and "woman", and never two people of the same gender. Indeed, all biblical references to sexual relations between people of the same gender are universally negative.
These are the facts. They are not the opinions of a culturally blighted few. They are not irrational or immoral. They are the facts.
In response you offer, "We disagree." You offer no suitable definition of marriage that aligns with history. You, in fact, don't even admit that you're redefining the term. This is odd, in fact, since the courts and even most of the advocates of "same-sex marriage" recognize that it is a redefinition. But not you. Your argument starts downstream someplace without recognizing the fundamental question of definition. You (plural, not "you just Dan") offer no historical or biblical support for your position. You simply suggest that "marriage equity demands" and do not address the concepts of "marriage", "equity", or even "demands". It isn't an argument; it's an emotional response. Nor is it based on any moral construct that can be traced to the hand of God.
We've offered historical and biblical reasons for our view. You've offered a warm feeling and emotional reasons for your view. And you have the audacity to claim we have no rational or moral arguments. This is why there is so little reason to allow you to comment on this blog.
Stefan, we are in complete agreement. There is no such thing as "gay marriage". It is a contradiction in terms. The demand among homosexual people to be allowed to marry is like a circle demanding to have corners. "Marriage" has a definition. "Same-sex" does not fit in that definition.
And, interestingly, there are open and forthright advocates of the nonsensical "gay marriage" who freely admit that they are attempting to redefine marriage in order to eliminate it. Some others in that group of advocates, of course, are shushing them. "Yeah, yeah, but don't tip our hand so soon!" And the rest of them are saying, "What?" Given over to a debased mind.
Stan...
First, my "side" is not "losing this debate". If "losing this debate" is defined as "not convincing the public", then we are, but that is not what determines if our "side" is right or not. That was my point.
I understand that was your point. But it wasn't mine. So, once again (as is so often the case), you're battling a strawman.
You set up this post and call it "Truth by Vote" (the implication being that folk like me think we determine truth by vote), when that was not my point.
You say things like "it appears as if the claim... was that an argument can be properly determined by asking those who listen which is the most rational or moral argument" when that was not my point.
You say things like, "I would hope, even to this blogger, that it is abundantly clear..." as if to suggest that "this blogger" is such a fool or an idiot that he might have a hard time understanding you can't have "truth by vote" when that was not my point in the first place.
You say things like, "If truth is a matter of voting..." as if to imply that was the point of my post, but, again, that was NOT my point.
You say things like "I'm pretty sure that genuine Christians aren't going to fall for that" as if to say, "...and since this person who CLAIMS to be a Christian DID fall for it, well..." when THAT WAS NOT MY POINT.
In short, you clearly once again failed to understand my point, then create a post to criticize this strawman which is NOT my point and then, rather than admitting, "Oh, my bad, I misunderstood..." you double down on the pushback, getting defensive and hard-hearted.
Humble thyself before the Lord, dear Stan. It's okay to misunderstand, but have the decency and Christian backbone to admit a mistake when you make one.
So, where you say...
First, my "side" is not "losing this debate". If "losing this debate" is defined as "not convincing the public", then we are...
Well, that WAS exactly the point of my post, that you are failing to convince the public. Your arguments come across as weak, irrational and/or immoral. Your methods of disagreeing come off as shrill and arrogant and immoral.
Doing posts like this very post where you build a strawman to knock down rather than deal with my actual point would be an example of how your side is being irrational and immoral.
Now, I'm entirely willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you just misunderstood, but a misunderstanding, once it has been corrected, should be acknowledged and admitted. Perhaps even an apology would normally be in order. I certainly strive to apologize when I misunderstand. Repentance is good for the soul, acknowledging our mistakes helps build our Christian humility, this is all good stuff, Stan.
I will leave it to my readers. You read the post. You read the original writer's comments. You read my response to his comments. Did I miss something? Did I lie? Did I falsely accuse? Did I get "defensive" and "hard-hearted"? Did my post or my response lack in humility? Or is something like "you all can't rationally and morally address these arguments and deal with these questions" intended as an attack to which I responded rightly? To whom should it be said, "your methods are immoral and irrational"?
It appears as if Dan complains about "a strawman" while offering a strawman argument. That is, he admits what my point was and then protests because it wasn't his point (which, as far as I'm concerned, is the reason for making comments -- "I agree or disagree with your point").
I'm also baffled by this complaint about my choice of words. When I use strong words of certainty, I'm an evil bigot. When I use careful words of uncertainty, I'm deceitful. It would appear that the only acceptable words I can use are either in agreement or silence.
By the way, Dan, please read the second paragraph of the post. I indicated that it is possible to get a "winner of a debate" by means of a vote, which appears to be your point. That is, I already agreed with that. Are you simply intending to repeat what I already affirmed? Certainly not.
So, if there are readers out there reading the text and comments, please let me know if I have a blind spot here and am missing some sin on my part. I know. It happens. And I don't want that.
This is a quick arguement. Dan has no scripture to back up what he is saying. Either you follow the Bible or you don't. Either you deny Christ's sacrifice and embrace sin, or you trust in His spilled blood and fight it. Either you are with God, or you are not. No debate needed.
Dan's arguments always run counter to what Scripture clearly teaches, then he spews gobbly gook to confuse. That fact that he says you should apologize seems really brazen to me. Dan, please consider the clear teachings of Scripture. Then decide whether or not you believe them. It's pretty plain text. Don't teach things that are counter to God's direct word and then say you are Christian. His book to us is not to be altered.
I'm curious as to why you even bothered to read his blog. I would imagine anything posted under his blog would have the same emotional drive as the comments he leaves under your blog. We have often asked why Dan even bothers to read your blog if you are so completely far off from him. Personally, when I read or watch things I disagree with that are based on emotion, I may comment to myself, but there is no point in commenting on it so that others can read it. It simply makes no sense. An emotional argument and a rational argument cannot come to any happy medium.
And Dan T, stop claiming you are making a rational, reasoned argument. Your (plural) argument that gay marriage should be allowed is based on tugging at our heart strings, "Isn't it so sad that these loving adults can't be married like other loving adults?" Boohoo, so sad. Not rational, not biblical, not reasoned. Empathetic.
Actually, David, I was reading a blog that was talking about the concept and linked to another blog. I went to see what the other blog said ... and it was Dan's. I don't read Dan's blog as a rule. And I didn't bring Dan up when I referenced it here because the fact that it was Dan's blog was irrelevant. It was the idea I was writing about, not Dan T.
I wonder who you were reading.
I read Dan's original post and was also taken by the notion that we're "losing" the debate. Dan's side doesn't really debate the issue at all, so it's hard to win a contest in which the opponent won't participate.
It was also rather strange to be accused of immorality in our arguments considering the immorality Dan supports. When he and his "side" is so given over to their sin, I don't see how anything we say won't be viewed as mean-spirited or "immoral". As to our arguments being "irrational", something akin to an explanation would be nice.
And by the way, Dan was given a good list of how legalizing SSM would be harmful and he deleted much of it. As I said, they don't really debate at all. They just claim victory.
I cannot attest to all that Dan does or believes, but I am constantly amazed by the claim "Our side has the best arguments" when it appears that the only argument produced by "their side" is "You guys with your historical and biblical facts are wrong and we are much nicer than you - nanny, nanny, boo, boo." I myself have, on multiple occasions with multiple people laid out the reasons (facts, references, etc.) for my position and the "argument" offered in response has never been anything more than "No it's not." It's like the Monty Python Argument Sketch where a guy goes in and requests an argument and is given nothing more than a contradiction. (Funny stuff if you haven't seen it before.) In the same way, they offer no arguments, just denial. No counter facts are offered. No alternative references are given. No reasons are included. And that's the "more compelling" argument.
Now, to be fair, their "argument" (such as it is) certainly is more compelling. "We feel that people who love each other should be allowed to marry. We feel that loving people deserve to have a chance at happiness. We love loving people. We feel that people should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy. And we feel the 14th Amendment protects that right." I mean, who wouldn't prefer that alternative to "There is a right thing to do and sometimes the right thing to do is not what you want to do"?
But it isn't an argument from facts. I claim that just because more people prefer their argument (the definition of "compelling" in this case) to the facts doesn't make their argument fact. And their view is that just because we're using facts doesn't make us right.
"And their view is that just because we're using facts doesn't make us right."
They have to remember - truth is independent of what someone believes. Truth is truth whether they believe it or not.
Stan,
You are correct that it is a compelling argument. The problem is it is not necessarily an appeal to rationality as much as it is an attempt to get people to respond on a visceral emotional level. Of course the other argument "marriage equity for all" is quite simply a lie told to make their side sound more inclusive than they actually are.
Yes indeed, a "compelling" argument because it tugs on the heartstrings without even touching rationality. I like this analysis of "marriage equity for all" that points out the whole problem with the very pleasant but completely untenable position.
Okay, the point of the post (here and there) was not the debate over marriage equity, but I will address the irrational comments being made here in hopes (against hope) that you can at least see the points being made.
These are rational, logical, sound facts that people like me (and an increasing majority of the population) see that support the notion of marriage equity for gay folk. You may not agree with them, but they ARE rationally sound, compelling arguments. If you disagree with that, well, you'd have to have SOMETHING on which to base it. I've yet to hear a compelling argument (even ONE) against these:
1. Licentious sexuality, sexual behavior with multiple partners with no commitments, is an unhealthy choice to make.
2. Sexuality is best enjoyed in the confines of a committed, loving, marriage relationship.
3. Thus, for folk with a gay orientation, the best, healthiest place to enjoy their God-given sexuality, is in a committed, loving marriage relationship.
4. This seems self-evident and abundantly obvious. WHY WOULDN'T that be a reasonable answer?
All we hear in answer to that (and against the self-evident, obvious support for marriage equity) is, "We've always done it this way..." or, "I THINK God prefers it the traditional way..."
Folk are welcome to those opinions, but they aren't very compelling. They're the equivalent of "But all my friends have always jumped off cliffs, why shouldn't I?" Just because "everyone's doing it" or "We've always done it this way" is not in itself an argument in support of continuing doing it that way.
5. It's not "tugging at the heartstrings" to note, "My grandmother married her partner years ago and they are helpmeets for one another. They make each other stronger, safer, more loved, more cared for... and, while I don't really want to know about it, IF they're engaging in sexual behavior, then they have a good, healthy, outwardly moral outlet for it. Not only does their loving marriage relationship make them stronger and better, but being stronger and better themselves, they make our family and community stronger, healthier and better."
Disagree with the idea if you want, but THAT IS NOT an emotional appeal, it is a rational appeal. In case you missed it, here it is simplified:
"Healthy marriage relationships make healthier individuals, families and communities. Therefore, why wouldn't we support healthy marriage relationships?"
Your collective inability to address that sort of question is why you have lost the debate.
Noting that is not an appeal to the masses for saying "this is objectively right," it's just noting that this is why you've lost the public debate. However, if you can't stand prepared to reason together in a compelling way, perhaps it is an indication that there are flaws in your argument and it's not as moral as you think.
It doesn't help your position, Dan, when you repeatedly seem to suggest that "compelling argument" is a determining factor of what is or is not true. As a completely silly example, I could make a "compelling argument" that standing in the middle of a busy street is a really good idea ... by tossing a bag of money into the middle of a busy street. See how many folk would be out there. Doesn't make it so.
What was the claim, what was my claim, and what continues to be the case is that there is no addressing of the question of definition of marriage. You (plural) use the term liberally (that is, generously, not meaning "in a politically liberal fashion"), but you don't define it. You completely ignore all of history and all cultures and all time and say ... nothing at all. So I could say, "Sexuality is best enjoyed in the confines of a committed, loving, bingaling relationship" without changing the meaning ... because you assigned no meaning to the term. And while a large portion of "your side" is willingly admitting that it is aiming at a redefinition, you (singular) completely ignore the question. What is marriage? And on what do you base this new definition?
I will not offer further rebuttals (because I haven't actually offered any rebuttals to your current "arguments") to the rest of your statements, but if this was a courtroom the lawyer for the defense (of marriage) would be standing up and objecting. "Your Honor, I object. Assuming facts not in evidence." Evidence for the idea that "gay folk" will aim for monogamy. Evidence that "gay orientation" is "God-given". Evidence that "marriage" means something other than what all time and all history and all Scripture seem to think. Evidence that "They make each other stronger, safer, more loved, more cared for" (because your claim is that it's not an "emotional appeal", so I'd like to see evidence).
Your short version, then, begs the question all over the place. What is "family"? What is "marriage"? The claim that "Healthy marriage relationships make healthier individuals, families and communities" is certainly agreeable to everyone ... but what you mean by "family" or "marriage" is not in evidence and, therefore, not an argument. (I mean, do you actually believe that those of us who believe that marriage and family mean something different than what you believe are opposed to marriage, family, or even marriage equity?) There has been no argument that I've seen supporting the redefinition of both "marriage" and "family". The arguments I've seen simply play off those words without meaning what was meant before and without explaining why. That is not an argument. That's an assumption.
Interestingly, Jesus lost the public debate as well and was crucified for it. Every one of His disciples lost the public debate and suffered for it. In Soviet Russia and Communist China, Christianity lost the public debate and was banned. The point of the post remains. A "compelling argument" in "the public debate" does not a truth make. On the other hand, "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked." At least, that's the Bible's diagnosis of the human condition. I suspect yours is different.
(Side question without need for further comment or debate: Did your grandmother actually "marry" (whatever term you wish to use) her partner? Or was that just a theoretical example?)
I'm confused. Presuming that Dan's grandmother example is real, then what are we even discussing. It seems clear that it was quite possible to be married years ago and it appears to have been successful. If this is the case then why are we having the discussion.
1. While I agree with this assumption, it remains an assumption.
2. Again, I agree with this and the Bible supports this view. There are plenty of examples of folks on Dan's side who would not.
3. "God given sexuality" is of course an assumption.
4. "seems" does not equate to is. This is pretty basic logic. To many in the gay community having anonymous unprotected sex with multiple partners seems like a good idea. The STD stats for gay men suggest otherwise.
5. Of course this is an emotional appeal. We have no way to evaluate the claims being made about the quality of the relationship. Also, to base any sweeping public policy on the basis of one example (or on one person's personal experience) is obviously foolish.
Excellent points about how well Jesus and the disciples fared in the court of public opinion.
To the questions:
The grandmother example was not real, in that my grandmothers did not marry women. It IS real in that there are plenty of real grandmothers out there living in a marriage relationship and it is beneficial for them and for society.
The question that remains unanswered is, "What possible reason would we have for NOT supporting such arrangements?" On the face of it, it is healthy and good for us (again, pointing out that this is not an appeal to emotion but an appeal to reason).
"On the face of it, it is healthy and good for us (again, pointing out that this is not an appeal to emotion but an appeal to reason)."
Again, "Your Honor, I object. Assuming facts not in evidence." It is an appeal to emotion because there are no facts to support it or demonstrate it. It is an emotional claim. It cannot be demonstrated either that it is healthy or good, let alone for all of us. There are studies that suggest the opposite, but that would require facts rather than emotions, wouldn't it?
Why not support "such an arrangement"? You haven't even explained what the "arrangement" is (the very thing that I stated before, stated repeatedly, and still state). A nebulous "arrangement" cannot be supported or defended. And still you offer no definition of "marriage" or explanation of why you come to a radically new one. Which, of course, has been a main point in this conversation. Your "compelling argument" is not an argument.
? What are you failing to understand.
Do you know what a marriage is?
Two people, loving one another, supporting one another, being intimate together, being family together, believing in one another, that is what marriage is.
It doesn't matter that the law used to say, "A black man and white woman can't be married" or that back then, people would say, "That is NOT marriage, that is an abomination!"
People recognize what a marriage is. It's just as I described.
So, why NOT support two people loving, supporting, being intimate, nurturing, etc in a marriage relationship? What's the downside?
And what is nebulous about a marriage relationship? Whether it's between mixed races, straight folk or gay folk? What are you not understanding? Because it seems pretty clear to me.
Rather than addressing the question in a rational manner, you all engage in these non-answers and evading reasonable questions.
And that is why you've lost, because you seem evasive, arrogant, irrational and immoral in how you approach this discussion.
I wonder, is Dan T for multi-partner marriage? Where does he draw the line for who can marry whom?
And Dan, to say we're losing because we haven't provided rational reasons for why homosexual marriage is bad for society is false. The bad effects on society have been enumerated repeatedly in the past. You just refuse to accept the information given. At this point, we stop responding to your emotional arguments because you don't listen to our rational arguments. Why bother giving you rational arguments that you ignore?
There, you see? That's the first time you've offered a definition. Where you get your definition isn't clear. On what basis, for instance, do you limit it to "two people"? Seems arbitrary without any supporting evidence or rationale. And you offer "being family together" without a hint of what you mean by "family" because the term means various things to various people. One girl views the Eiffel Tower (I'm not kidding; look it up) as family. There is a general perception that a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend are now "family". Sly and the Family Stone suggested "we are family" meaning all human beings. You haven't offered a hint at what you mean by it. Further, it seems to me that "two people, loving one another, supporting one another, being intimate together, being a family together, believing in one another" is generic enough to not require the approval of any government entity. Beyond even that, there is nothing in that fine definition that precludes, for instance, two brothers who meet that description. Would you consider that "marriage"? I would suggest that your definition offers no support to exclude it.
So, you have arbitrarily decided that it can only be two people without rational or even moral support and you have arbitrarily defined "family" as whatever it is you have chosen to define it without explanation and you have (at least likely) excluded people who do fall in all those categories without rational or moral explanation.
This is not evasion. This is the question. We say marriage is and always has been the union of a man and a woman and you say ... it isn't. You offer no evidence or even argument to support that. And you burble a complaint that I'm being evasive. This was the question all along. You have not "argued" that marriage should be between man and man nor have you responded to the myriad questions it raises nor have you offered any defense for why polygamy or polyamory should be excluded from your arbitrary "two", and you call this a "more compelling argument". I, on the other hand, presented the historical and biblical definitions of these terms without ambiguity. I concur with history and Scripture. You ignore history, deny Scripture, and suggest a brand new definition for both sexual morality and marriage. That makes me evasive and arrogant and you coherent and humble?
That's why I suggest that it isn't a case of bad arguments. It's a case of hard-heartedness.
Stan...
Where you get your definition isn't clear. On what basis, for instance, do you limit it to "two people"?
People know what a marriage is. And it ISN'T limited to two. Polygamous marriages are ALSO marriages, as the Bible makes clear in its inclusion.
Now, we may disagree with how good an idea a polygamous marriage is or mixed race or marriage between gay folk, but no one is unclear on what it is.
Are you?
As to "family," of course, family can mean many things. You seem to be approaching this from a legalistic, ONLY ONE ACCEPTED ANSWER approach.
But family is a mixed and marvelous thing that we find in many places. When we were newly married, we opened our home to two single mothers and their children and a single college student. We were a family of sorts. We ate together, laughed and cried together, shared together... we WERE family.
In our church, we have gay folk who've been kicked out of their birth families and they've found family in our congregation. Indeed, our congregation is a family in a very real sense to one another.
Indeed, when Jesus said, "who is my family? Those who do the will of God..." he made clear that family was not limited to a legalistic mother, father, and kids nuclear family.
Do you not understand and agree with the notion that family is or can be where we find it? Because again, that seems obvious to me and I think most folk, including Jesus, if you read that passage in a straightforward manner.
Stan...
We say marriage is and always has been the union of a man and a woman and you say ... it isn't. You offer no evidence or even argument to support that.
I offer real world evidence and history. Marriage has been many things throughout the years. It does not have ONE single definition and ONE way that it MUST look. We've been through all this before.
Again I ask:
So, why NOT support two people loving, supporting, being intimate, nurturing, etc in a marriage relationship? What's the downside?
And what is nebulous about a marriage relationship?
Your inability to rationally and morally address this question is why you've collectively lost this argument in the population at large.
You say I deny scripture and ignore history, but you err in confusing YOUR interpretation of Scripture and YOUR idea of history as the only acceptable way of looking at it.
As always, that I disagree with you is not an indication that I disagree with God, history or Scripture. You do not hold all of knowledge or morality or history in your possession.
Indeed, your inability to address these sorts of questions in a manner that is moral and rational is why you've lost this argument.
Stan,
I really need to congratulate you on such excellent, rational responses to one of the most irrational and illogical persons I have ever encountered.
You really make my day!
Stan,
One problem I see with defining marriage is this, in what sense is marriage being defined. Since the goal of Dan and his ilk is to gain legal acceptance of non hetro marriage, then should we assume that we are discussing the legal definition of marriage? If that is the case then Dan's opinion of what he thinks marriage is has significant problems as a legal definition.
"Two people, loving one another, supporting one another, being intimate together, being family together, being family together, believing in one another that is what marriage is."
"Two people..." As you correctly pointed out limiting marriage to two is simply arbitrary.
"...loving one another..." Where in any current US legal code is love an intrinsic part of marriage? How doe you legally define love? How do you mandate love? Do you limit the rights of cultures which engage in arranged marriages? Do you limit older couples who might wish to marry for financial reasons? Who gets to decide if prospective marriage partners are really in love? Again, this is an arbitrary standard that is impossible to measure, define, or enforce legally.
" ...being intimate together,..." This clause raises many of the questions of the "love" clause. How do you define intimate? How do you measure intimate? Do you really want the government to determine how intimate a given grouping is? Who makes the decisions? Is it necessary to be intimate before marriage?
"... being family together..."
A nice sentiment, but how does one measure the appropriate amount of familyness? Once more an arbitrary imposition of Dan's values on others.
"...believing in one another..."
One more arbitrary, unmeasurable, unenforceable standard. That raises as many questions as it answered.
While I think that Dan's definition is the ideal for marriage, in no way is it or could it be a legal definition of marriage.
If this marriage ideal is what Dan is fighting for when he supports SSM, then he's already "demonstrated" (in his example) that these relationships are already possible. The fact that many/most gay folk choose not to engage in these types of relationships is an entirely different matter.
Perhaps it would be best to take a step back and define what type of marriage is being discussed. Then to come up with a realistic definition of marriage in the appropriate context.
"People recognize what a marriage is. It's just as I described."
I've seen plenty of marriages that don't fit your description. Are you really asserting that only arrangements as you describe are marriages?
"So, why NOT support two people loving, supporting, being intimate, nurturing, etc in a marriage relationship?"
Absolutely nothing is preventing two people of any combination from engaging in this type of relationship right this very minute. I know people who are doing this very thing. Your "example" demonstrates this very well.
"Rather than addressing the question in a rational manner, you all engage in these non-answers and evading reasonable questions."
Yes, Stan, the better approach would be to delete Dan's comments then mischaracterize them.
"And that is why you've lost..."
Except at the ballot box. You keep forgetting that the vast majority of states who have allowed a vote on this issue, have voted to maintain the status quo. While this trend may or may not continue, as it sits right now, it is your side who has lost many more votes than ours.
Which is exactly the point of the post. No matter which side "wins" or "loses", the bigger question is what is right. Unfortunately, persuasive emotional appeals, changing demographics, and court decisions don't decide right and wrong.
No, Dan, I am not unclear on what marriage is. As Craig and I and others have so well pointed out, however, you are. That's the point. Your terms are vague and undefined. Your arguments are vague and undefined. You argue, for instance, that family is part of the definition of marriage and then explain that it means so very much at to be useless to the discussion. If "those who do the will of God" defines "family" ... well, can't you see how this makes it completely useless in the definition?
And, as I've said before, here's how it has always worked. I present evidence and state facts. You deny them. "Marriage has been many things throughout the years." No evidence. No response to the evidence or facts. Just, "Uh-uh." I present the fact that all of Scripture presents the same view of marriage that I've offered and you ignore it. You don't refute it. You don't counter it with something different. You say, "I disagree with your interpretation." That's not an argument; that's a denial.
You've managed, in your efforts to demonstrate that my argument isn't as good as yours, to demonstrate what we've been saying all along. You don't have an argument. You do have an emotional appeal. I mean, sure, as demonstrated by the congressman who changed his view when his son announced he was gay, the emotional side will certainly sway people. So the most common argument I hear from "your side" is "Everyone should be allowed to marry whoever they love." Like that makes sense.
Dan, you've made your case. We've responded. I've explained that "public opinion" is not a suitable method to determine what is true. You don't even disagree with that. I've offered Scripture to indicate that Natural Man, hostile to God, will not naturally be persuaded by the truth, regardless of the argument. And we're all clear that you disagree. So, we're done. Thanks for the dance. We won't do it again soon.
Craig, you make a good point. In what context are we defining this? If from an interpersonal perspective, it's done. Anyone can be "married" as described by Dan.
Of course, the question before the courts and before the nation is in a legal sense. It is "marriage equity". And Dan's definition fails to clear that one up.
Stan, I know you said "we're done", but I'll try to sneak one in anyway...
I got this one! Dan said:
So, why NOT support two people
loving, supporting, being intimate, nurturing, etc in a marriage relationship? What's the downside?
Well, Dan, the downside is that direct rebellion to God usually is not a good thing. His WORD clearly defines marriage (yes, it does), so taking a position on the side of rebellion (Sin) is not going to be a good thing in the end.
Stan,
I could be wrong, but it seems as though Dan has defined marriage, then contended that his definition of marriage isn't broad enough to define marriage.
Ultimately as long as there is continued obfuscation as to what aspect of marriage he is exactly talking about the rest of this is fairly pointless.
Craig, it appears as if the position is, "Hey, look, everyone knows what marriage is (except, obviously, those of you who are offering a definition with which we disagree) and no simple definition is needed or will suit. Now, on to the important stuff. We want bleevil equity!" (Because the term for which equity is demanded is not exactly defined.)
Stan,
It would seem as though Dan has "defined" marriage the same way a SCOTUS justice defined pornography. "I know it when I see it."
Having said that, there is a sense in which I agree with him.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched enough Sister Wives to say that what I've seen looks like a marriage. Despite Dan's continued contention that such marriages are by definition unhealthy.
To be clear, I don't agree with plural marriage, but if the standard is "I know one when I see one.", then there it is. I guess the polygamists have figured out how to make things work pretty well, now why can't the gay folk do the same?
I agree. It appears his definition is "I know it when I've seen it." No attempt is made to solidify, make common, or defend it.
Sister Wives, however, doesn't actually connect here. Historically and biblically polygamy is marriage. However, the mistake that Dan and so many others make is suggesting that "multiple wives" in that culture defines marriage. Remember, the question is "the definition of marriage". If "multiple wives" defines marriage in those cultures, then that poor guy with one female companion is just ... shacking up. No! He was just as married as the others. So what made it "marriage"? One man and one woman. In polygamy, it remains the same. One man marries one woman. Then that same one man marries another one woman. The women are not married to each other. (Interestingly, I can find no record of polyandry -- a woman marrying multiple men at the same time.) Since both one man married to one woman and one man married to one woman and then married to another (etc.) are both defined as "marriage" in a polygamous society, it is clear that marriage, at its core, is still defined as "one man and one woman". So it doesn't change the definition ... like the same-sex side is trying to do now.
Stan,
I have no question that Sister Wives shows a marriage. My point is that it doesn't meet Dan's definition.
Oh, yeah, I see what you're saying.
Post a Comment