• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage

Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Ad hominem. Aquinas's preexisting opinions have no relevance to the validity of his arguments.

No they don't. And there is no evidence of the FSM.

His points aren't valid. In fact, he made them prior to us finding out a whole lot more about physics and the world around us.

There is no evidence of God either. In fact, if I were to even consider the Aquina's "5 Ways", then the FSM would be just as valid an explanation for all those things mentioned as the Christian (or any other religion's) god or gods.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It implies that sodomy is morally acceptable, thus negatively impacting public morality (since the service is public).

How does anyone know anyone is performing sodomy?

How is sodomy *objectively* harmful?

What makes sodomy immoral?

(No sex act has anything to do with marriage, if you that is the service you refer to. Many straight couples also do it, and married couples do not *have to have* sex, it is not a requirement and we all know that most married couples have less and less sex as time goes on.)
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

No one knows for absolutely certain the exact number of stars in the galaxy, and each person would guess differently. Does that make the number of stars in the galaxy subjective?

No, because each person knows they are only guessing (or lying).
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

How are morals nothing more than personal opinions?

Stop yanking her chain. You've been in several threads specific to this topic lately and have never been able to explain how morals are objective. And your Catholic Confessional theory or whatever it's called picked apart and most certainly disposed of for application in America. Also exposed the whole 'natural law' thing as a poorly disguised attempt at acknowledging a higher power driving nature.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

That isn't proof. That is philosophy and opinion. You really are having a problem with this whole fact thing in debating which you are not very good at.

In a recent thread, he tried to prove that the Holocaust being immoral was 'absolute' and so that was proof that morals are objective. He had a list of 5or 6 things he claimed were factual...and everyone else pretty much pointed out that none or almost none of those things were 'facts.'
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

His points aren't valid. In fact, he made them prior to us finding out a whole lot more about physics and the world around us.

There is no evidence of God either. In fact, if I were to even consider the Aquina's "5 Ways", then the FSM would be just as valid an explanation for all those things mentioned as the Christian (or any other religion's) god or gods.

How are they not valid?

How so?

How does anyone know anyone is performing sodomy?

How is sodomy *objectively* harmful?

What makes sodomy immoral?

(No sex act has anything to do with marriage, if you that is the service you refer to. Many straight couples also do it, and married couples do not *have to have* sex, it is not a requirement and we all know that most married couples have less and less sex as time goes on.)

Do you really doubt that they're committing acts of sodomy?

Sodomy is contrary to the natural end of human sexuality.

Roguenuke already posted it. Here it is again, where Palecon attempts to use the Holocaust as proof that morality is objective.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/191925-legislating-morality-2.html#post1063190006

So are you saying that the holocaust was not objectively immoral?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

How are they not valid?

How so?

Already explained. But here is some more to help you out.

http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-ways-of-st-thomas-aquinas-are-all-dead-ends/

Plus, how can the FSM or Zeus or a cadre of little green men that do not have to conform to the laws of physics or nature not be just as valid of an explanation for what Aquinas opined as proof? Afterall, he nor you have any proof that any specific god exists, let alone the one you believe in. It is just as likely that any or all gods ever imagined really have a hand in the existence of the universe.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Do you really doubt that they're committing acts of sodomy?

Sodomy is contrary to the natural end of human sexuality.

I have no idea what they are doing. Do you?

And why does it matter if anything is contrary to the natural end of human sexuality?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Sodomy is contrary to the natural end of human sexuality.


That's wrong just because any consensual sex act increases the intimacy bond, ensuring a pair stay together and further ensuring successfully raising the offspring.

Non-sexually productive individuals in nature also protect the young of the group, as a matter of fact, in some groups, only the alpha male and female are allowed to mate and all others support them with resources and protection. Those individuals all have worth and a purpose even if they are not reproducing themselves. And of course we all know that homosexuals do reproduce naturally all the time. Why? Because **they WANT families.** They **WANT** to reproduce. Being gay does not take away that urge OR that ability.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

So are you saying that the holocaust was not objectively immoral?

Yes. *I* think it was immoral. That does not prove it was.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Already explained. But here is some more to help you out.

http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-ways-of-st-thomas-aquinas-are-all-dead-ends/

Plus, how can the FSM or Zeus or a cadre of little green men that do not have to conform to the laws of physics or nature not be just as valid of an explanation for what Aquinas opined as proof? Afterall, he nor you have any proof that any specific god exists, let alone the one you believe in. It is just as likely that any or all gods ever imagined really have a hand in the existence of the universe.

Already explained. But here is some more to help you out.

http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-ways-of-st-thomas-aquinas-are-all-dead-ends/

Plus, how can the FSM or Zeus or a cadre of little green men that do not have to conform to the laws of physics or nature not be just as valid of an explanation for what Aquinas opined as proof? Afterall, he nor you have any proof that any specific god exists, let alone the one you believe in. It is just as likely that any or all gods ever imagined really have a hand in the existence of the universe.

1. When Aquinas and other classical philosophers used the word "motion", they mean change. Thus new discoveries regarding the nature of physical movement are not invalidating.

2. When particles and antiparticles are created, they do not come from nothing, rather they require energy to create them, and when they mutually annihilate, they produce energy. If the classical philosophers had known of modern physics regarding energy, they would termed it matter for philosophical purposes, since it is physical by nature, and is thrush of immaterial or spiritual.

Thus it remains that something cannot come from nothing. This also disproves the article's claim that things cannot be created by other things (the article makes a strawman implication, as classical philosophy agrees that matter cannot actually be created by other created beings, but can only be rearranged), as particles and antiparticles can create energy, and vice versa.

Only created things require a cause, thus something which existed forever would not need a cause. The five ways aren't it intended to prove Christianity specifically, but only classic monotheism. Thus it is sufficient to show an eternal unchanging being as the cause of everything else.

Regarding the suggestion that the universe could have existed forever, this is not possible as it would require infinite time. Infinite time is impossible since it would require a countable infinity, which cannot really exist. In other words, if there had been a moment that was infinitely long ago, now would not exist as it would never be possible to actually get from then to now.

3. The problem is that in the Demiurge the monster did have other created things, such as the cloud. Plus his memory was not eternal, thus he should have known that he was contingent, since he didn't exist at some point.

In any case, the reason why there must be a necessary being is because if they're weren't then it would be possible for nothing to exist at some point, in which case nothing would exist now, which is absurd.

4. The classical philosophers were aware of decay, they knew it was a necessary result of a thing being subject to time. However if there were a spiritual benign not subject to time, it would not be subject to decay.

5. As the article admitted, there are things, such as rocks, that clearly lack minds.

Zeus isn't eternal and unchangeable.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

1. When Aquinas and other classical philosophers used the word "motion", they mean change. Thus new discoveries regarding the nature of physical movement are not invalidating.

2. When particles and antiparticles are created, they do not come from nothing, rather they require energy to create them, and when they mutually annihilate, they produce energy. If the classical philosophers had known of modern physics regarding energy, they would termed it matter for philosophical purposes, since it is physical by nature, and is thrush of immaterial or spiritual.

Thus it remains that something cannot come from nothing. This also disproves the article's claim that things cannot be created by other things (the article makes a strawman implication, as classical philosophy agrees that matter cannot actually be created by other created beings, but can only be rearranged), as particles and antiparticles can create energy, and vice versa.

Only created things require a cause, thus something which existed forever would not need a cause. The five ways aren't it intended to prove Christianity specifically, but only classic monotheism. Thus it is sufficient to show an eternal unchanging being as the cause of everything else.

Regarding the suggestion that the universe could have existed forever, this is not possible as it would require infinite time. Infinite time is impossible since it would require a countable infinity, which cannot really exist. In other words, if there had been a moment that was infinitely long ago, now would not exist as it would never be possible to actually get from then to now.

3. The problem is that in the Demiurge the monster did have other created things, such as the cloud. Plus his memory was not eternal, thus he should have known that he was contingent, since he didn't exist at some point.

In any case, the reason why there must be a necessary being is because if they're weren't then it would be possible for nothing to exist at some point, in which case nothing would exist now, which is absurd.

4. The classical philosophers were aware of decay, they knew it was a necessary result of a thing being subject to time. However if there were a spiritual benign not subject to time, it would not be subject to decay.

5. As the article admitted, there are things, such as rocks, that clearly lack minds.

Zeus isn't eternal and unchangeable.

All gods or higher powers that any person or group has ever thought of is just as capable as the Abrahamic god of doing those things mentioned by Aquinas. And the Abrahamic god is not unchangeable either. Can you prove otherwise? In fact, prove that the Abrahamic god is eternal.

As for your rebuttal, you are mistaken. Aquinas was simply proven wrong. He was not in any way scientific in his methods. He started from a set conclusion, "there is a god", and worked to validate that conclusion. That is not how science works. Philosophy sure, but philosophy is subjective as well.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

So are you saying that the holocaust was not objectively immoral?

There you go again, clinging to a fallacy by hoping to demand people prove a negative.

The Holocaust was SUBJECTIVELY immoral. This is indicated by the fact that members of the Nazi regime felt it was absolutely moral, while many others felt it was incredibly immoral. This clearly demonstrates how the morality of the holocaust varied based on individual opinion.

If you want to claim that the Holocaust was OBJECTIVELY immoral, you need to provide facts to back up your assertion.
 
Very interesting lawsuit. So the question is this? If the United Church of Christ, which supports gay marriage, is not allowed to perform gay marriages, then are their first amendment religious freedoms being violated? They have certainly opened up a can of worms with this lawsuit.

Discussion?

Article is here - United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage.

Note to mods - Title would not fit, so I had to take a couple of words out to make it fit.

Second note to mods. The source changed the title, so now it doesn't match at all. LOL.

I've said this a million times already - the government should play no role in marriage.

Marriage should be completely secular from government.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

There you go again, clinging to a fallacy by hoping to demand people prove a negative.

The Holocaust was SUBJECTIVELY immoral. This is indicated by the fact that members of the Nazi regime felt it was absolutely moral, while many others felt it was incredibly immoral. This clearly demonstrates how the morality of the holocaust varied based on individual opinion.

If you want to claim that the Holocaust was OBJECTIVELY immoral, you need to provide facts to back up your assertion.

It also shows how humans can be corrupted via propaganda.

Humans are extremely flawed and extremely gullible and easy to take advantage of.

This is why my social politics are based on the founding documents and I keep my religious beliefs to myself - well at least the believes that contradict what is stated in our founding documents (Constitution & Bill of Rights).

I do oppose gay marriage, however that issue is something I hardly ponder or philosophize about. However if I had the choice to ban gay marriage I wouldn't - I would find such a concept authoritarian, and as a libertarian that contradicts my politics.

Honestly, I'm a bit perturbed that this is even an issue.... Like I said before; government shouldn't play a role in marriage.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

All gods or higher powers that any person or group has ever thought of is just as capable as the Abrahamic god of doing those things mentioned by Aquinas. And the Abrahamic god is not unchangeable either. Can you prove otherwise? In fact, prove that the Abrahamic god is eternal.

As for your rebuttal, you are mistaken. Aquinas was simply proven wrong. He was not in any way scientific in his methods. He started from a set conclusion, "there is a god", and worked to validate that conclusion. That is not how science works. Philosophy sure, but philosophy is subjective as well.

You don't seem to get it. The five ways aren't about which religion is correct, they're about monotheism.

How was he proven wrong?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

You don't seem to get it. The five ways aren't about which religion is correct, they're about monotheism.

How was he proven wrong?

Polytheism works with those just as well. Why exactly would it be necessary for one god to exist but not allow for more than one god?

And he has no quantitative values nor scientific information, i.e. experimentation, to back up his "theories". He is starting with assumptions, particularly that God exists.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Polytheism works with those just as well. Why exactly would it be necessary for one god to exist but not allow for more than one god?

And he has no quantitative values nor scientific information, i.e. experimentation, to back up his "theories". He is starting with assumptions, particularly that God exists.

For which argument specifically?

You are starting with the assumption of empiricism, that only those things which are scientifically testable are true, this view is self-refuting since it cannot be scientifically tested.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Polytheism works with those just as well. Why exactly would it be necessary for one god to exist but not allow for more than one god?

And he has no quantitative values nor scientific information, i.e. experimentation, to back up his "theories". He is starting with assumptions, particularly that God exists.

IMO, it would be impossible to have more than one God.... Don't you think if there was more than one God they would get into fights from time to time?

Obviously I have no evidence that they would, but being human and observing human behavior I would expect that would be an issue amongst Gods..

This can be taken as satire or literally - neither would bother me, considering I find the idea funny myself...
 
I've said this a million times already - the government should play no role in marriage.

Marriage should be completely secular from government.

Do you mean 'separate' from govt?

Cuz then I completely agree.
 
I've said this a million times already - the government should play no role in marriage.

Marriage should be completely secular from government.

And has been explained many times, nothing is gained from separating the state from 'marriage.' From the point of view of government, it's a VOLUNTARY act, nothing more than a couple signing a contract that appends to it by act of law the hundreds of rights, benefits, and responsibilities decided on by the state. It's a convenience, for the couple, lenders, employers, the couple's children, and many more. What purpose does eliminating state recognition of 'marriage' serve, except to appease the ideological preferences of those opposed to all things "government?"
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

IMO, it would be impossible to have more than one God.... Don't you think if there was more than one God they would get into fights from time to time?

Obviously I have no evidence that they would, but being human and observing human behavior I would expect that would be an issue amongst Gods..

This can be taken as satire or literally - neither would bother me, considering I find the idea funny myself...

Even if they did get into fights, so what?

Or maybe they have different areas of control. Like each has a galaxy, or perhaps each has something they deal with (sort of like the gods of many polytheistic cultures).

And I'm not trying to say that this isn't a possible theory, only that I don't see why it would matter if there were multiple gods that did fight somewhere we don't know about.
 
Do you mean 'separate' from govt?

Cuz then I completely agree.

I suppose it all depends on what you believe marriage is about.... If "separate" satisfies you then sure.
 
And has been explained many times, nothing is gained from separating the state from 'marriage.' From the point of view of government, it's a VOLUNTARY act, nothing more than a couple signing a contract that appends to it by act of law the hundreds of rights, benefits, and responsibilities decided on by the state. It's a convenience, for the couple, lenders, employers, the couple's children, and many more. What purpose does eliminating state recognition of 'marriage' serve, except to appease the ideological preferences of those opposed to all things "government?"

I'm a Catholic and I understand the First Amendment and the state shouldn't be acting as a Church.

Unions are unions and marriages are marriages.

Marriages are endorsed by the Church and unions are endorsed by the state.

Now does the government have the right to takeover the Churches duty - especially in a period of time when the First Amendment is being debated with such negativity.

My position on this issue to solve all these problems is for the state to stay out of marriage entirely.

Besides, what business does the state have with your marriage anyways?

Taxes codes can easily be amended and so can living wills or wills in general.

If it was done my way "gay marriage" er "civil unions" wouldn't even be a debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom