<

Christianity Supports Same-Sex Marriage: the Movie

This is a longer version of my recent summary of how Christianity, seen correctly, supports same-sex marriage. That summary was deliberately brief, but this video (my first) explores the topic in more depth.

I developed this in support of Washington’s upcoming referendum 74, but I’d like to pass it along in the hope that it will provoke conversation.

YouTube Preview Image

Many thanks to the great folks at the Living After Faith podcast for technical help with this project.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken …
   If this be error and upon me proved,
   I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
— William Shakespeare, Sonnet 116

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Roza

    Nice and informative.
    Are you planning to do more videos?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Thanks for the feedback. No plans yet, but perhaps taking some of the posts and cartoon-izing them (have you seen NonStamp Collector?).

  • Mr. X

    My internet’s acting up at the moment so I only got the first ten minutes or so, but my thoughts on the video so far:

    “Homosexuality is unnatural”

    “Natural” in the context of Natural Law Theory means “in accord with something’s telos”. Gay sex doesn’t accord with the telos of sexual intercourse, hence it is unnatural. Whether or not it is genetically predetermined is irrelevant, as is its incidence in other animal species.

    Re: the harm issue: your argument only makes sense on a fundamentally consequentialist analysis. Christian ethics, however, aren’t consequentialist, so your point is irrelevant.

    As for redefining marriage, there’s a difference between the essential properties of marriage (i.e., those properties without which something can’t properly be considered a marriage) and the accidental properties (i.e., things which you can vary without changing its status as a marriage: age of consent laws, inheritance rights, and so on). The examples you list of “changing the definition of marriage” are all examples of changing the accidental definition of marriage: so, for example, people in the 1960s might have thought of mixed-race marriage as inadvisable or immoral, but I don’t think anyone considered mixed-race marriage to be a logically contradictory idea. Throughout history, however, marriage has been considered to be a union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and most would have considered this to be an essential property. You obviously think they’re wrong, but proving it will take more than “Age of consent laws vary from State to State” or some such.

    As for religious laws being subordinate to secular laws: that’s true in the sense that the State can compel people to follow its commands, but it’s also irrelevant to Christian views on marriage. So the government can compel people to recognise same-sex marriage. So what? That doesn’t prove that they’d be right to do so.

    • smrnda

      If a person builds a temple to Zeus and is granted the right to do so by the government, it does not compel a Christian to agree that the worship of Zeus is right, just permitted by the State as any other religion would be. Permitting gay marriage does not compel Christians to agree that it is good any more than permitting a temple to Zeus requires them to believe in Zeus. I’d go that legalizing same-sex marriage imposes no burdens on religious people at all, but places substantial burdens on homosexuals. I see zero compulsion. Nobody is demanding that churches perform marriages for same sex couples – they’re still free to reject anyone they want.

      I really don’t care what religious people think about human sexuality. It’s true that Christian morality is not consequentialist or utilitarian, but laws should be based on utilitarian principles alone, on principles that can be agreed on without any need to recourse to religious belief.

      I guess the difference in my view is that marriage shifted from being a property relationship (where the woman was legally, property, or had reduced legal status) into a more egalitarian arrangement, and my take is that inegalitarian relationships are inherently bad.

      • Mr. X

        “If a person builds a temple to Zeus and is granted the right to do so by the government, it does not compel a Christian to agree that the worship of Zeus is right, just permitted by the State as any other religion would be. Permitting gay marriage does not compel Christians to agree that it is good any more than permitting a temple to Zeus requires them to believe in Zeus.”

        If two gay people find a church willing to perform a marriage service, I highly doubt the police would come and arrest them, so they are already in fact permitted to get married if they wish. What’s under contention is whether or not the government should officially recognise and encourage same-sex unions as being the same as heterosexual unions, which is a different matter altogether.

        “I’d go that legalizing same-sex marriage imposes no burdens on religious people at all, but places substantial burdens on homosexuals. I see zero compulsion. Nobody is demanding that churches perform marriages for same sex couples – they’re still free to reject anyone they want.”

        So if somebody runs a hotel which only lets married couples stay in double rooms, would they be allowed to turn away gay couples on the grounds that they’re “not properly married”, or would they be legally obliged to accept them? (That’s a genuine question, BTW, I don’t actually know the answer.)

        “should be based on utilitarian principles alone”

        That idea leads to some rather strange consequences. For example, if we passed laws based solely on utilitarian principles, we would, instead of punishing criminals, put them in a place where they could fulfil their criminal desires without harming anyone, whilst making society in general think that we were actually punishing them. Assuming for argument’s sake that we can in fact run society along those lines, would you really say that that’s what we ought to do?

        “I guess the difference in my view is that marriage shifted from being a property relationship (where the woman was legally, property, or had reduced legal status) into a more egalitarian arrangement, and my take is that inegalitarian relationships are inherently bad.”

        Maybe so, but I don’t see how you get from there to “gay marriage ought to be introduced”.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Mr. X:

      Gay sex doesn’t accord with the telos of sexual intercourse, hence it is unnatural.

      Gay sex is widespread within nature, hence it is natural.

      Maybe we’re not using the same definitions.

      your argument only makes sense on a fundamentally consequentialist analysis. Christian ethics, however, aren’t consequentialist, so your point is irrelevant.

      Are you saying that this should be binding on me?

      Throughout history, however, marriage has been considered to be a union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and most would have considered this to be an essential property.

      One man’s accidental property is another’s essential property. I bet that many people in the South in the 1960s felt that racial purity was an essential property. The Bible supports that, after all.

      So the government can compel people to recognise same-sex marriage. So what? That doesn’t prove that they’d be right to do so.

      What is “right” and how would we establish that?

      • Mr. X

        “Maybe we’re not using the same definitions.”

        More to the point, you’re not using the same definition as the Catholic Church, making your argument against the “homosexuality is unnatural” idea irrelevant.

        “Are you saying that this should be binding on me?”

        Are you saying that Christian ethics shouldn’t be discussed in a thread about “why Christianity supports same-sex marriage”?

        “I bet that many people in the South in the 1960s felt that racial purity was an essential property.”

        You might bet that, but do you have any actual evidence?

        “What is “right” and how would we establish that?”

        Personally I incline towards natural law theory. Although since you bring the topic up, and given your support for moral relativism, why should anybody care about your arguments? Why even have this discussion at all? If gay marriage is a matter of taste with no ultimate value, why get so worked up about it?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Mr. X:

          More to the point, you’re not using the same definition as the Catholic Church, making your argument against the “homosexuality is unnatural” idea irrelevant.

          Yeah, I’m using the dictionary’s definition of “natural.” Let’s use that one.

          You might bet that, but do you have any actual evidence?

          Why ask the question? My providing any won’t change your opinion.

          given your support for moral relativism, why should anybody care about your arguments?

          Perhaps you live in a bubble. In the real world, people engage in polite arguments to find compromise, make laws, change their own opinions, and so on. These people care about others’ arguments, though you’re welcome to go your own way.

          If gay marriage is a matter of taste with no ultimate value, why get so worked up about it?

          I have an opinion, and I want to provide input to thoughtful readers. Why–is this a trick question?

        • Mr. X

          “Yeah, I’m using the dictionary’s definition of “natural.” Let’s use that one.”

          No, let’s use the definition your opponents are using, otherwise you’ll end up straw-manning them.

          “Why ask the question? My providing any won’t change your opinion.”

          I am actually open to persuasion on the issue, difficult as you may find it to believe. Now do you have any evidence?

          “Perhaps you live in a bubble. In the real world, people engage in polite arguments to find compromise, make laws, change their own opinions, and so on. These people care about others’ arguments, though you’re welcome to go your own way.”

          Why care about others’ arguments if there’s no objective right and wrong, and no way of organising society is objectively better than another? Alright you might want to arrange society so that it benefits you personally, but why bother about whether or not gay people can get married if you aren’t gay yourself?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          No, let’s use the definition your opponents are using, otherwise you’ll end up straw-manning them.

          I’m quite certain that many (most?) of my opponents are quite comfortable using the dictionary’s definition of “natural” and won’t begrudge me that.

          But as for this one subset, tell me how they define “natural.”

          Now do you have any evidence?

          I don’t have any evidence that many in the South in the 60s felt that racial purity was an essential property. Why–you doubt this? I’m not eager to do the research since, as we seem to agree, it won’t change your mind on anything one way or the other.

          Why care about others’ arguments if there’s no objective right and wrong, and no way of organising society is objectively better than another?

          This attitude is fascinating. You only care about objective right and wrong, though you can’t show me that X is objectively right and Y objectively wrong. You dismiss the idea that a society full of people who never thought about objective morality could have any concept of right and wrong.

          To answer your question, though this can’t be new to you, we people who see no clothes on the Objective Morality emperor stumble through life quite nicely using our own instinct and reason to evaluate right and wrong.

          why bother about whether or not gay people can get married if you aren’t gay yourself?

          Again, maybe I don’t understand your question, because this answer has surely already occurred to you: (1) I want a properly functioning society. That’s better for me. (2) My moral instinct demands that I work to right wrongs where I can.

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          I’m quite certain that many (most?) of my opponents are quite comfortable using the dictionary’s definition of “natural” and won’t begrudge me that.

          I have to agree with X on this one. “Natural” in Catholic-speak references “natural law” not “human nature.” “Human nature” is generally called “flesh” in NT terminology, and it is inclined to sin, while “natural law” actually has to do with our natures before sin.

        • Mr. X

          “But as for this one subset, tell me how they define “natural.””

          This “one subset” happens to include the Catholics, the largest single denomination in Christianity. As for how they define “natural”, I’ve already said: “natural” = “in accord with something’s telos”. But why do you need me to tell you? You specifically mentioned in your rebuttal of the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument that it was commonly advanced by Catholics. Did you not take the trouble to find out what Catholics actually think before trying to prove them wrong?

          “I don’t have any evidence that many in the South in the 60s felt that racial purity was an essential property. Why–you doubt this?”

          Yes I do, largely because in my (admittedly limited) research into the era, I’ve come across people saying that mixed-raced marriages are immoral/contrary to God’s wishes/leading to the downfall of the Great White Race, but none saying that mixed-races marriage is a logically impossible contradiction in terms.

          “I’m not eager to do the research since, as we seem to agree, it won’t change your mind on anything one way or the other.”

          Wait, when did I agree to this? I specifically said that I’m open to persuasion on the issue.

          “To answer your question, though this can’t be new to you, we people who see no clothes on the Objective Morality emperor stumble through life quite nicely using our own instinct and reason to evaluate right and wrong.”

          You “stumble through life quite nicely”, true, largely because most of you live as if there are in fact actual objective standards of right and wrong. As you are doing in this whole gay marriage argument.

          “Again, maybe I don’t understand your question, because this answer has surely already occurred to you: (1) I want a properly functioning society. That’s better for me.”

          But when you deny any objective standard of right and wrong, can “a properly functioning society” mean anything more than “a society which happens to conform to my personal preferences”? And why should anybody else care what your preferences are, or whether society conforms to them?

          “(2) My moral instinct demands that I work to right wrongs where I can.”

          But your moral theory makes a nonsense of the idea of wrongs to right. There are only situations which happen to please you, and situations which don’t. Yes, you might feel better if situations which don’t please you change in such a way that they now do please you, but again, why should anybody else care whether or not you’re pleased by the current state of society? If my moral instinct tells me that homosexuality is yucky and that everybody with a mincing walk and interest in fashion should be stoned to death, why should I listen to your moral sense over mine?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT and X:

          Is the word “natural” a sticking point? Then I’ll just rephrase my point: 500 animal species have homosexuality; we are animals; that we have homosexuality just makes sense and shouldn’t puzzle or surprise anyone.

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          @Bob

          I will wager that the same number of animal species have murder, rape, thievery, etc. (I *know* that gorillas will try to lie). Simply because something is in accord to animal nature that does not mean that it is right, good, or desirable. By Christian theology, at least, very often the things of a purely animal nature are equated to “flesh”, a word which has extraordinarily negative connotation.

          (Side thought: Is suicide a human malady?).

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          Did you not take the trouble to find out what Catholics actually think before trying to prove them wrong?

          Here’s one source: “We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal” (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality). This is the attitude that my point rebuts.

          But if you’re saying that Catholics are happy to accept that fact that humans, like many other animals, can be homosexual, that’s great to hear.

          I’ve come across people saying that mixed-raced marriages are immoral/contrary to God’s wishes/leading to the downfall of the Great White Race, but none saying that mixed-races marriage is a logically impossible contradiction in terms.

          Nor have I. You were talking, however, about essential properties of marriage.

          Consider this source: “In February 1961, Barack Obama’s parents did something that was illegal in 22 states and that 96% of the population disapproved of: they got married. In fact, interracial marriage, sex and cohabitation would remain illegal in much of the U.S. for another six years” (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996028,00.html#ixzz1Ze30TmRt).

          Much of that 96% would probably consider same race to be an essential property of a marriage. That is, a mixed-race “marriage” is not a marriage. You can redefine that word so that it means something else (biological necessity, for example), but otherwise, I think that this might have been a widespread opinion.

          You “stumble through life quite nicely”, true, largely because most of you live as if there are in fact actual objective standards of right and wrong.

          Show me.

          While you’re at it, make a case of your own. Show me that objective morality exists. Give me an example.

          And why should anybody else care what your preferences are, or whether society conforms to them?

          I’m pretty sure we’ve been over this, and the question baffles me. You do understand how people can argue and (sometimes) come to a common understanding? You understand how compromise is reached and laws are made? Have you ever been argued into admitting that you made a mistake?

          That’s why.

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          But if you’re saying that Catholics are happy to accept that fact that humans, like many other animals, can be homosexual

          Just as an interjection. There is no denial that homosexuality is a common phenomenon. The Catechism notes that “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible (CCC# 2358)”. It also admonishes that “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (ibid). That said, it also points out that “tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (CCC# 2357)

          A good understanding of the Catholic teachings is that we are not responsible for having urges. Rather, we are responsible for how we act on those urges. I am not responsible for whether I find a woman attractive: I am responsible for any sexual relations I have with her, whether in fantasy or in reality (my wife being an exception to this). A person who is homosexual is not responsible for finding members of the same gender attractive. They are responsible for their action.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT:

          Simply because something is in accord to animal nature that does not mean that it is right, good, or desirable.

          My point exactly. Natural/unnatural isn’t the issue; it’s harmful/not harmful.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT:

          it also points out that “tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

          And that’s where it’s messed up. People come out of God’s factory white or black, gay or straight, and you’re going to tell us that this group is good and that group is bad?? Whatever happened to “God don’t make no junk”? Probably not the way you’d’ve phrased it, but I would think that respecting the rightness of how God put us together is something you’d hold important.

          A good understanding of the Catholic teachings is that we are not responsible for having urges.

          God gives a gay person urges that he/she can act on without harming anyone (y’know–just like those urges in a straight person) … and what’s the problem now? If you’re saying that you’re just the messenger and that you don’t buy into this nonsense, OK. But I’m not sure that’s where you’re coming from.

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          And that’s where it’s messed up. People come out of God’s factory white or black, gay or straight, and you’re going to tell us that this group is good and that group is bad??

          There is nothing saying that any group is less good than another, or that one group has a lesser potential for holiness. Every individual has a different path, and some are harder than others. I know of at least two homosexual men who have had an easier time staying true to the Catholic teachings than I have.

          Probably not the way you’d’ve phrased it, but I would think that respecting the rightness of how God put us together is something you’d hold important.

          All struggle. All are born with at least some weaknesses, most will add to these over time. It is an unfortunate part of life.

          God gives a gay person urges that he/she can act on without harming anyone (y’know–just like those urges in a straight person) … and what’s the problem now?

          There is also a prohibition against masturbation, and another one against pornography, and another one against going to “men’s clubs.” For that matter, “don’t eat meat on Friday” (still on the books) falls under the same “without harming anyone” category. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I certainly cannot recall a situation where a person’s “urge” justified an action.

          If you’re saying that you’re just the messenger and that you don’t buy into this nonsense, OK. But I’m not sure that’s where you’re coming from.

          I’m saying that this is the Catholic perspective. And when I said that, all I was saying was a reiteration of the Catholic perspective.

          If I were to add an opinion, I would have to say that I concur that one cannot hold the Catholic view on the incarnation without holding the view on masculinity/femininity, the view on contraception, the view on masturbation, and the view on homosexuality. They are inter-dependent.

        • Mr. X

          Words have different meanings in different contexts. When a physicist talks about different “flavours” of quarks, he’s not using the term “flavour” in the same sense than an ice cream parlour would. The word “cold” has a different meaning in the sentences “He gave me a cold look” and “It’s cold outside today”. Similarly, the word “natural” has a different meaning in the context of natural law theory than in the context of everyday conversation. This really isn’t hard to understand, and your attempts to claim otherwise are frankly starting to look more than a little disingenuous.

          “Here’s one source: “We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal” (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality). This is the attitude that my point rebuts.”

          And reading down a little further:

          “Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.”

          So homosexuality being unnatural has nothing to do with whether or not it’s genetically inherent. Oh. Looks like you didn’t rebut the attitude at all.

          “Nor have I.”

          So you don’t actually have any evidence, then.

          And “96% of people think mixed-race marriage should be illegal” =/= “96% of people think that mixed-race marriages are literally impossible”. If 96% of people thought that the age of consent for marriage ought to be 18, would it follow that they’d consider marriages between younger people (in countries where the age of consent is lower) to be logically impossible?

          “Show me.”

          Your entire argument implicitly relies on the premise that some things (discrimination, bigotry, etc.) are wrong, and other things (freedom, tolerance, equality) are good. If they’re all just arbitrary and subjective preferences, there’s no reason to bother getting rid of discrimination, since nothing will ultimately be gained.

          “Have you ever been argued into admitting that you made a mistake?”

          Yes, because I believe in objective standards of right and wrong about which one can be mistaken. If I accept your theory, however, no, I’ve never been argued into admitting I made a mistake (at least on moral matters); I’ve simply been argued into swapping one set of arbitrary preferences for another, equally valid, set of arbitrary preferences.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT:

          Every individual has a different path, and some are harder than others.

          And the obstacles you throw in the way of homosexuals are simply made up. Simply drop the arbitrary “You are sinful when you act on the desires nature gave you” and the sin is gone. If only real problems could be dismissed as easily as imaginary ones!

          There is also a prohibition against masturbation

          Is this in the Bible or just Catholic tradition?

          Perhaps I am mistaken, but I certainly cannot recall a situation where a person’s “urge” justified an action.

          Does that urge hurt anyone? No? Well then let’s let it go. Harm is the issue, I propose.

          all I was saying was a reiteration of the Catholic perspective.

          And are you OK with this perspective? Or does it give you pause?

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          And the obstacles you throw in the way of homosexuals are simply made up.

          I doubt this, but then, I am a Catholic.

          “You are sinful when you act on the desires nature gave you.”

          Do you REALLY want to baptize all of our urges? Because that seems like it would cause some difficulties.

          Is this in the Bible or just Catholic tradition?

          Depends on who you ask.

          Does that urge hurt anyone? No? Well then let’s let it go. Harm is the issue, I propose.

          But the Catholic answer is that it does harm both people engaged in the act.

          And are you OK with this perspective? Or does it give you pause?

          It depends on how you mean “OK”. Do I think it unfortunate that there are those who completely deny Catholic moral teaching? Absolutely. While I would never presume to judge the state of their soul (for all I know, they’re closer to God than I am), all who sin will hurt themselves.

          On the other hand, do I regret the fact that such actions are a sin? No. Does it give me pause that some people have one difficulty while others have another? No.

          By the by, I was simply presenting the view as “the Catholic teaching” because it seems best that we all know what we’re talking about. I did not advocate it because I find little hope that I will convert anyone here, but if I can keep people better informed, I think that will benefit us all.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          This really isn’t hard to understand

          Yeah, I get it. I’m sure no one misunderstand my use of “natural.”

          So you don’t actually have any evidence, then.

          About mixed-race marriages being logically impossible? No, I don’t. Never said that I did. I’m glad we’re on the same page, finally.

          Your entire argument implicitly relies on the premise that some things (discrimination, bigotry, etc.) are wrong, and other things (freedom, tolerance, equality) are good.

          Wrong and good from my perspective. And I try to argue others into accepting my position.

          If they’re all just arbitrary and subjective preferences, there’s no reason to bother getting rid of discrimination, since nothing will ultimately be gained.

          The only morality is objective? That’s not what the dictionary says.

          I have moral instincts, and I bet yours are similar. Hey–we could form a society! Think we could find even more people who share our moral attitudes?

          But if you have evidence for objective morality, I’d like to see it. I’ve never seen any.

          Yes, because I believe in objective standards of right and wrong about which one can be mistaken.

          You may be shocked to learn that those of us who’ve (tragically!) never seen evidence of this fabled “objective morality” also have standards and also the humility to realize that they could improve their moral opinions.

          But on a different subject, what does it mean that objective morality exists but that you change your mind? Does objective morality exists but we simply can’t tap into it?

          I’ve simply been argued into swapping one set of arbitrary preferences for another, equally valid, set of arbitrary preferences.

          It will probably shock you that in the back rooms where those who reject objective morality don’t eat babies, we don’t pick our morality by throwing darts at a wall. Arbitrary morality baffles us as much as it does you.

        • Mr. X

          “Yeah, I get it. I’m sure no one misunderstand my use of “natural.””

          But you seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand the Catholic use of “natural”, rendering all you said on the matter in your video completely irrelevant.

          “About mixed-race marriages being logically impossible? No, I don’t. Never said that I did. I’m glad we’re on the same page, finally.”

          In which case I see no reason to accept your suspicions about people’s views on the essential properties of marriage, and therefore no reason to accept your analogy between gay marriage and mixed-race marriage.

          “The only morality is objective? That’s not what the dictionary says. “

          And why exactly should we accept your dictionary as an authority in this debate.

          “You may be shocked to learn that those of us who’ve (tragically!) never seen evidence of this fabled “objective morality” also have standards and also the humility to realize that they could improve their moral opinions.”

          Talk of “improving” moral opinions presupposes an independent standard by which you can measure improvement. What standard, pray tell, do you propose we use?

          “But if you have evidence for objective morality, I’d like to see it. I’ve never seen any.”

          What would you expect evidence for objective morality to look like?

          “But on a different subject, what does it mean that objective morality exists but that you change your mind?”

          It means that my current moral system represents my best guess about what objective morality is like. If somebody convinces me that my guess is deficient in some regard, I change it so that it’s no longer deficient.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT:

          Do you REALLY want to baptize all of our urges?

          I really want to remove from the “sin” category anything that doesn’t hurt anyone. And if the only one that it hurts is God (blasphemy, say), then we can let him deal with it.

          But the Catholic answer is that it does harm both people engaged in the act.

          Then they can preach that. When it comes to life here on earth (the one life we actually know we have), I’d like to see religious notions kept out of the civil lawmaking process.

          On the other hand, do I regret the fact that such actions are a sin? No.

          If God could either make gaiety a sin or not, you’d vote that he make it a sin? I don’t understand why.

          if I can keep people better informed, I think that will benefit us all.

          A worthwhile cause. I appreciate the information, thanks.

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          I really want to remove from the “sin” category anything that doesn’t hurt anyone. And if the only one that it hurts is God (blasphemy, say), then we can let him deal with it.

          Easy Catholic answer: “But all things which are sins hurt at least the perpetrator.”

          Then they can preach that. When it comes to life here on earth (the one life we actually know we have), I’d like to see religious notions kept out of the civil lawmaking process.

          An entirely separate notion. Unfortunately, owing to the environments which have shown up in countries which have allowed similar legislation, it became fairly clear that the state’s endorsement of homosexual coupling lead to a near immediate truncation of religious liberty.

          If God could either make gaiety a sin or not, you’d vote that he make it a sin? I don’t understand why.

          I never said I would vote for anything being a sin (if this were a voting matter, then why would there be sin to begin with?). I said that I do not regret that they have already been defined as sins.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          But you seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand the Catholic use of “natural”, rendering all you said on the matter in your video completely irrelevant.

          The Catholic position is either in opposition to my point about homosexuality being natural (in which case my points are relevant) or they agree (group hug!).

          In which case I see no reason to accept your suspicions about people’s views on the essential properties of marriage, and therefore no reason to accept your analogy between gay marriage and mixed-race marriage.

          I find myself repeating my position since I don’t know what you’re talking about–but that probably won’t aid the conversation.

          What’s an “essential property”? Is this a commonly held term with an agreed-to definition? I doubt it. Therefore, the thought experiment of asking Southerners in 1960 (say) if racial purity was an “essential property” of marriage makes sense. And I bet you’d get many (a majority perhaps) who would say that it was.

          And I assume you’ll respond that you bet that we wouldn’t. In which case we have nothing more to discuss on this subtopic.

          And why exactly should we accept your dictionary as an authority in this debate.

          Gimme a dictionary then. Work with me. Show me some reason to accept your definition of morality. Please.

          Talk of “improving” moral opinions presupposes an independent standard by which you can measure improvement. What standard, pray tell, do you propose we use?

          Nothing comes to mind? Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn’t have a chance to think about it.

          I measure my actions against my conscience. That’s the standard.

          What would you expect evidence for objective morality to look like?

          Just gimme something here. Anything. Let’s start with what you think would be good evidence that I should accept for William Lane Craig’s definition of objective morality.

          It means that my current moral system represents my best guess about what objective morality is like. If somebody convinces me that my guess is deficient in some regard, I change it so that it’s no longer deficient.

          Careful, bro–you sound like a rejecter of objective morality, like me!

          So are you saying that objective morality exists but you simply can’t reliably access it? Is this why you’d need to change your mind?

        • Mr. X

          “The Catholic position is either in opposition to my point about homosexuality being natural (in which case my points are relevant) or they agree (group hug!).”

          When the Catholic Church says “unnatural”, they mean “contrary to something’s telos”. You, however, implied that they mean “not found in nature”, and went on to rebut that claim. I’m not sure whether this was due to ignorance or whether you were deliberately being misleading, but either way, your argument is attacking a straw man. Your constant attempts to wriggle out of admitting that you were attacking a straw man are also pretty shabby.

          “What’s an “essential property”? Is this a commonly held term with an agreed-to definition? I doubt it.”

          An essential property is one which cannot be changed without changing what a thing is. By contrast, an accidental property is one which when changed doesn’t affect the type of thing it’s a property of. E.g., “having human DNA” is an essential property of being a human, since something without human DNA isn’t a human at all, but another type of animal; “having hair” is an accidental property, since a person can go bald without ceasing to be a human.

          “Therefore, the thought experiment of asking Southerners in 1960 (say) if racial purity was an “essential property” of marriage makes sense.”

          If you can provide evidence for this, then it would weaken my argument, as either (a) we would have changed the essential properties of marriage before, or (b) it would imply that we can often be mistaken about what the essential properties of marriage are. Since you’ve failed to provide such evidence, however, I see no reason to take your objection particularly seriously.

          “Gimme a dictionary then. Work with me. Show me some reason to accept your definition of morality. Please.”

          Even people who deny objective morality act as if they actually believe objective morality exists, including you.

          “I measure my actions against my conscience. That’s the standard.”

          Surely then for you “improving [your] moral opinions” means changing your conscience so that it now tells you something different to what it did before. In which case, it’s not actually an independent standard.

          “So are you saying that objective morality exists but you simply can’t reliably access it? Is this why you’d need to change your mind?”

          Something like that.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          Your constant attempts to wriggle out of admitting that you were attacking a straw man are also pretty shabby.

          Sorry to disappoint. I have nothing to add beyond what I said last time. My position either agrees with the Catholic church (great!) or disagrees (then my attacks are relevant).

          An essential property is one which cannot be changed without changing what a thing is.

          Then if we disagree on whether same-sex marriage violates an essential property or not, we disagree on the definition of marriage. I’m not sure that the concept of an “essential property” has helped.

          If you can provide evidence for this, then it would weaken my argument, as either (a) we would have changed the essential properties of marriage before, or (b) it would imply that we can often be mistaken about what the essential properties of marriage are. Since you’ve failed to provide such evidence, however, I see no reason to take your objection particularly seriously.

          If you reject the possibility that Southerners in 1960 thought that racial purity was an essential property of marriage, OK. I don’t have the time to research this and probably couldn’t convince you no matter what I found.

          Even people who deny objective morality act as if they actually believe objective morality exists, including you.

          Read my lips: I reject objective morality. “Nuh uh!” doesn’t convince me.

          While we’re at it, I’d like your evidence for objective morality.

          it’s not actually an independent standard.

          Correct. You didn’t ask for one.

          Something like that.

          So objective morality exists, but we can’t reliably access it. Then why worry about it? If it doesn’t impact our lives, then it’s like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Why pollute the conversation by waving around a concept that is irrelevant?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT:

          But all things which are sins hurt at least the perpetrator.

          OK. But you can imagine that that means nothing to those of us outside your religion.

          Unfortunately, owing to the environments which have shown up in countries which have allowed similar legislation, it became fairly clear that the state’s endorsement of homosexual coupling lead to a near immediate truncation of religious liberty.

          Like how? Preaching is now categorized as hate speech?

          I said that I do not regret that they have already been defined as sins.

          Why stop at homosexuality? Is this arbitrary? Are you eager to have whistling on Tuesdays declared a sin? Or do you have some guidelines that make you pick some things for sins and others not?

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          OK. But you can imagine that that means nothing to those of us outside your religion.

          The word “ebola” doesn’t mean much to most people outside of Western culture. Are you suggesting that it isn’t deadly?

          Like how? Preaching is now categorized as hate speech?

          That, and refusal to perform homosexual marriages results in fines and imprisonment.

          Are you eager to have whistling on Tuesdays declared a sin?

          That’s just silly.

          Why stop at homosexuality? Is this arbitrary?… Or do you have some guidelines that make you pick some things for sins and others not?

          I believe that this has been asked and answered. The immorality of homosexuality has to do with the nature of the incarnation (and therefore natural law). A change in the one results in a change in the other.

          If you like, I do know of some reference material on the matter. JPII’s Theology of the Body is the most comprehensive exposition on the topic, but Christopher West is generally considered much more approachable. Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est arguably can be considered better than either: it is far more to the point than JPII and it is far more substantive than Christopher West. Have you read it?

        • Mr. X

          “Sorry to disappoint. I have nothing to add beyond what I said last time. My position either agrees with the Catholic church (great!) or disagrees (then my attacks are relevant).”

          Seriously, Bob, give it up. Your refusal to accept you were wrong is just making you look disingenuous.

          “Then if we disagree on whether same-sex marriage violates an essential property or not, we disagree on the definition of marriage. I’m not sure that the concept of an “essential property” has helped.”

          It helps by indicating why most “We used to do marriage in X way, now we do it in Y, therefore we’ve already redefined marriage” arguments don’t work, since the change always seems to be in an accidental rather than an essential property.

          “If you reject the possibility that Southerners in 1960 thought that racial purity was an essential property of marriage,”

          I never rejected the possibility of anything, I simply asked you to back up your claims with evidence. Quite a reasonable request, I’d have thought.

          “Read my lips: I reject objective morality.”

          And yet you have no problem judging other people according to your own moral code. What rational grounds do you have for doing this?

          “Correct. You didn’t ask for one.”

          Erm, yes I did:

          “Talk of “improving” moral opinions presupposes an independent standard by which you can measure improvement. What standard, pray tell, do you propose we use?”

          My question still stands, BTW.

          “So objective morality exists, but we can’t reliably access it. Then why worry about it? If it doesn’t impact our lives, then it’s like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Why pollute the conversation by waving around a concept that is irrelevant?”

          Just because we can’t access something with 100% reliability doesn’t mean that it has no effect on our lives. We can’t access scientific truth with 100% reliability either, so is the concept of science “irrelevant”?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT:

          The word “ebola” doesn’t mean much to most people outside of Western culture. Are you suggesting that it isn’t deadly?

          Not much of a comparison, I’m afraid. To explain Ebola and how to avoid getting sick would mesh nicely with any culture in the world, since this concept fits into an existing structure. They may not know of Ebola, but they certainly know about getting sick.

          Convincing someone about God is a very different process. It can work, but it’s not the same convincing process.

          That, and refusal to perform homosexual marriages results in fines and imprisonment.

          Nonsense. Show me where in the US pastors will be forced to perform marriages.

          I believe that this has been asked and answered.

          Not that I can understand. You say that (1) homosexuality is wrong in the church’s eyes, (2) you’re bound by this fact, and (3) you’re OK with this fact. It’s #3 that I don’t get.

          The immorality of homosexuality has to do with the nature of the incarnation

          Jesus was incarnated in a human body … and that connects with homosex being wrong how?

          Have you read it?

          No.

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          Jesus was incarnated in a human body … and that connects with homosex being wrong how?

          Theology of the Body is dense and I can’t do it justice here. I have a 8″x10″ 10 pnt. font version and it is over 2000 pages. If you are interested in the truth claims of the Catholic Church related to gender, that is the best place to start.

          Nonsense. Show me where in the US pastors will be forced to perform marriages.

          I never said that they have been forced in the US. I specifically spoke of environments which have shown up in countries which have allowed similar legislation. This is one of the major concerns with how the British law to allow homosexual marriage has been structured.

          Not much of a comparison, I’m afraid. To explain Ebola and how to avoid getting sick would mesh nicely with any culture in the world, since this concept fits into an existing structure. They may not know of Ebola, but they certainly know about getting sick. Convincing someone about God is a very different process. It can work, but it’s not the same convincing process.

          This does not address the point behind the analogy: simply because a group does not believe/understand something is bad for them, that does not mean it isn’t bad. I never said anything about even convincing people about God because I never said anything about convincing anyone of anything (homosexual relations are bad for people whether they believe it or not).

          Not that I can understand. You say that (1) homosexuality is wrong in the church’s eyes, (2) you’re bound by this fact, and (3) you’re OK with this fact. It’s #3 that I don’t get.

          What’s so hard to get? I concur with the Church’s theo/philosophical reasoning on this (Humanae Vitae was fairly well written). And, while it might be nice to pick and choose which theologies I follow, it becomes very difficult to maintain philosophical consistency unless I am willing to at least accept what I agree with.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          Seriously, Bob, give it up. Your refusal to accept you were wrong is just making you look disingenuous.

          Uh huh. I think my dichotomy (with which you refuse to engage) shows that my comments are relevant.

          It helps by indicating why most “We used to do marriage in X way, now we do it in Y, therefore we’ve already redefined marriage” arguments don’t work, since the change always seems to be in an accidental rather than an essential property.

          No, it doesn’t help in the least when we can’t agree on what an essential property of marriage is.

          I never rejected the possibility of anything, I simply asked you to back up your claims with evidence. Quite a reasonable request, I’d have thought.

          Good. Then consider the possibility that Southerners in 1960 thought that racial purity was an essential property of marriage and tell me what you think. Any evidence that I would find to make my case, you’ll reject.

          And if you reject my claim, great. Let’s not discuss it anymore then.

          And yet you have no problem judging other people according to your own moral code.

          I’ve made clear several times what I mean by “objective morality.” Since what I do is not objective morality, perhaps you should stop pretending that it is.

          My question still stands, BTW.

          You said: “What standard, pray tell, do you propose we use?” I answered: “I measure my actions against my conscience. That’s the standard.”

          I wouldn’t call that an independent standard, but it’s the one I use.

          Just because we can’t access something with 100% reliability doesn’t mean that it has no effect on our lives.

          Then how reliably can we access objective morality?

          How about this: objective morality either doesn’t exist or it does but we can’t access it. The natural explanation works just fine; why throw in this useless addition?

        • Mr. X

          “Uh huh. I think my dichotomy (with which you refuse to engage) shows that my comments are relevant.”

          No, your comments aren’t relevant, because a Catholic could quite easily say “Yes, homosexuality is found among animals” without changing his argument at all. And they’re misleading because saying “Catholics think homosexuality is unnatural, but they’re wrong, since lots of animals are homosexual” implies that “Catholics think homosexuality is unnatural” = “Catholics think no animals are homosexual”, which is not in fact the case.

          Like I say, this isn’t difficult to understand. I’m not sure why you’d rather look stupid/disingenuous than simply throw up your hands and say “Yes, sorry, I made a mistake,” but there it is.

          “Good. Then consider the possibility that Southerners in 1960 thought that racial purity was an essential property of marriage and tell me what you think.”

          In that case I’d say “Oh, so it looks like they were wrong about the essential properties of marriage. Maybe I am too.”

          “Any evidence that I would find to make my case, you’ll reject.”

          Not everybody is as pig-headed as you are, you know.

          “You said: “What standard, pray tell, do you propose we use?””

          You’re ignoring the context of my question, which was that talking about moral improvement only makes sense if you have some objective third standard by which to measure your previous and current moral views. If you don’t, then talk of moral improvement is incoherrent.

          “How about this: objective morality either doesn’t exist or it does but we can’t access it.”

          That’s a fairly clear example of a false dichotomy. I can think of two other options off the top of my head: (1) objective morality exists, and we can reliably access it; (2) objective morality exists, and we can access it, albeit with less than 100% reliability.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          No, your comments aren’t relevant, because a Catholic could quite easily say “Yes, homosexuality is found among animals” without changing his argument at all.

          Do some Catholics think that homosexuality is unnatural, using “unnatural” as it is defined in the dictionary? And how about Catholic doctrine–where is it on this issue?

          You’re ignoring the context of my question

          But now you have the information you need. I’m sure you’re delighted.

          moral improvement only makes sense if you have some objective third standard by which to measure your previous and current moral views

          The instinct doesn’t change, but the social element does. We delude ourselves when we imagine an objective morality against which to compare the morality in society at the moment. But we can use new information (“Wait–animals feel pain and fear the same as we do? Maybe we should all be vegetarians.”) to adjust.

          That’s a fairly clear example of a false dichotomy.

          A deliberate attempt to obfuscate? No–we’d already been over these possibilities. You made clear that #1 doesn’t exist, I believe, and #2 is what you claimed.

          If we’re on the same page now, let’s consider #2 (like we did in the last comment). My question: why introduce the concept of objective morality if it’s not needed–that is, if it doesn’t explain anything that a natural explanation doesn’t?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          IT:

          Theology of the Body

          You said, “The immorality of homosexuality has to do with the nature of the incarnation.” I’m simply asking what the heck you’re talking about. If I need to read a 2000-page book to get this point, then it may not make sense to bring it up.

          I never said that they have been forced in the US.

          Group hug. Since this isn’t a worry in the US, let’s just say we agree and move on.

          This does not address the point behind the analogy

          Is this worthy getting into? Seems irrelevant.

          I said that your claim that homosex was sinful means nothing to those of us outside your religion.

          You said that “Ebola” might also mean nothing to many people, but it would still be deadly.

          I said that “Ebola is deadly” or “Here’s how to avoid Ebola” could be explained fairly readily to just about anyone in any culture. Every culture understands sickness. By contrast, “God exists” or “God will punish homosex” could not.

        • http://theophor.us Ignatius Theophorus

          You said, “The immorality of homosexuality has to do with the nature of the incarnation.” I’m simply asking what the heck you’re talking about. If I need to read a 2000-page book to get this point, then it may not make sense to bring it up.

          Realized that was a cheap response after the fact. Sorry. I was suffering from East Coast woes when I wrote it. Will try to get back to it later this week.

          Group hug. Since this isn’t a worry in the US, let’s just say we agree and move on.

          The reason people worry about it in the US is that it wasn’t a worry in the UK until recently. It wasn’t a worry in Canada for some time before they started dragging pastors away for speaking their theology. Then some aggressive politicians made it an issue.

          Is this worthy getting into? Seems irrelevant. I said that your claim that homosex was sinful means nothing to those of us outside your religion. You said that “Ebola” might also mean nothing to many people, but it would still be deadly. I said that “Ebola is deadly” or “Here’s how to avoid Ebola” could be explained fairly readily to just about anyone in any culture. Every culture understands sickness. By contrast, “God exists” or “God will punish homosex” could not.

          But the ability to explain isn’t really relevant here. I suppose I might have better used the example of polio in Pakistan. We can explain all we want, but the people won’t listen, and they still put themselves at risk because of this.

        • Mr. X

          “Do some Catholics think that homosexuality is unnatural, using “unnatural” as it is defined in the dictionary? And how about Catholic doctrine–where is it on this issue?”

          If you looked hard enough, you could probably find some Catholics who think homosexuality is unnatural as defined by you, but I don’t really think that’s relevant. I’ve already told you what Catholic Doctrine is on this issue.

          “The instinct doesn’t change, but the social element does. We delude ourselves when we imagine an objective morality against which to compare the morality in society at the moment.”

          But you weren’t just talking about society — you specifically said “those of us who’ve (tragically!) never seen evidence of this fabled “objective morality” also have standards and also the humility to realize that they could improve their moral opinions.” So, unless you phrased yourself very misleadingly, you think that moral subjectivists can improve their moral opinions. How do you define and measure this “improvement” without any objective standard against which to measure it?

          “If we’re on the same page now, let’s consider #2 (like we did in the last comment). My question: why introduce the concept of objective morality if it’s not needed–that is, if it doesn’t explain anything that a natural explanation doesn’t?”

          “Scientific theories are never 100% reliable. So why cloud discussions about how the world works with this useless ‘science’ concept?”

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          If you looked hard enough, you could probably find some Catholics who think homosexuality is unnatural as defined by you, but I don’t really think that’s relevant. I’ve already told you what Catholic Doctrine is on this issue.

          And you’ve already told me that I’m not addressing Catholic doctrine. Got it the first time. My point (repeated too many times to repeat again here) remains.

          you think that moral subjectivists can improve their moral opinions

          I’m not a moral subjectivist; I’m someone who rejects objective moral truth.

          How do you define and measure this “improvement” without any objective standard against which to measure it?

          Objective in the sense of “widely accepted,” sure. That standard is our collected moral wisdom (society). Objective in the sense of “grounded outside humanity”? Nope–I’ve never seen such a thing.

          “Scientific theories are never 100% reliable. So why cloud discussions about how the world works with this useless ‘science’ concept?”

          Science delivers. Science is self correcting. (Both of which I’m sure you agree with.)

          As for a kind-of-but-not-really accessible objective morality? Why introduce that? Science works; what good is this hypothesis?

        • Mr. X

          “And you’ve already told me that I’m not addressing Catholic doctrine. Got it the first time. My point (repeated too many times to repeat again here) remains.”

          If you weren’t trying to address Catholic doctrine, why did you imply you were in the video?

          “I’m not a moral subjectivist; I’m someone who rejects objective moral truth.”

          So what’s the difference then?

          “Objective in the sense of “widely accepted,” sure. That standard is our collected moral wisdom (society).”

          So “improving our moral opinions” turns out to mean “bringing our moral opinions more into line with what society as a whole thinks”. Awesome. So, if your side loses the gay marriage referendum, am I to take it that you will start opposing gay marriage so as to bring your views closer to the widely-accepted collective moral wisom of society?

          “As for a kind-of-but-not-really accessible objective morality? Why introduce that? Science works; what good is this hypothesis?”

          It’s good because moral judgements are meaningless without any kind of independent standard. Otherwise “Gay marriage is morally right” essentially means “Gay marriage happens to please me at this moment in time”. So what? Why should anybody else care what does and does not please you?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          If you weren’t trying to address Catholic doctrine, why did you imply you were in the video?

          Is this issue really worth this detailed conversation? I was talking about what Catholics say. Some Catholics are spouting official Catholic doctrine; others aren’t.

          So what’s the difference then?

          They’re not defined the same way by many apologists. “Moral relativism” is nothing that I accept, as it is defined (or straw manned, perhaps). I simply reject the claim of objective moral truth.

          So “improving our moral opinions” turns out to mean “bringing our moral opinions more into line with what society as a whole thinks”.

          “What society thinks” is a moving target. It changes. We tell ourselves that that thinking is improving (though we may be deluding ourselves–how would we know for sure?).

          It’s good because moral judgements are meaningless without any kind of independent standard.

          What does “independent” mean? If it’s simply “outside of me,” then we’ve been over this–we have society.

          Instinctive moral judgments are their own standard. When your conscience tells you that X is wrong, then X is wrong. There is no higher authority.

          Your argument for objective morality seems to be “It’s just gotta be there.” No it doesn’t.

          Why should anybody else care what does and does not please you?

          I’ve answered this question a dozen times. Haven’t we been over this?

          You should care (or not) about my moral opinions in the same way that you care about anyone else’s. You have changed your mind in your life, right? You’ve been argued out of a position?

        • Mr. X

          “Is this issue really worth this detailed conversation?”

          If you’re trying to argue that “Christianity, properly understood, supports same-sex marriage” and you mis-state the relevant position of the largest Christian denomination, both in the US and in the world generally, then yes, I think that’s actually a pretty major issue with your argument, and one that ought to be dealt with.

          “They’re not defined the same way by many apologists. “Moral relativism” is nothing that I accept, as it is defined (or straw manned, perhaps). I simply reject the claim of objective moral truth.”

          All very well, but I’m still no closer to seeing what you think the difference actually is.

          “What does “independent” mean? If it’s simply “outside of me,” then we’ve been over this–we have society.”

          Surely the implication of this argument is that it’s always wrong to disagree with society’s moral opinions? So, to repeat my question, if society rejects your idea that SSM is a good thing and your side loses the referendum, will you change your moral views on the matter accordingly? Or, if you continue to maintain that society is wrong, then on what grounds will you do so?

          “Instinctive moral judgments are their own standard. When your conscience tells you that X is wrong, then X is wrong. There is no higher authority. “

          And if somebody else’s conscience tells them otherwise? Your account of morality seems to leave no place for actual moral debate or reasoning.

          “I’ve answered this question a dozen times.”

          Yes, but your answers so far have all been unsatisfactory.

          “You should care (or not) about my moral opinions in the same way that you care about anyone else’s.”

          I care about other people’s moral opinions because I think there’s actually a thing called morality about which one can have a meaningful opinion. If I adopt your worldview and decide that there’s no such thing as objective morality, why should I take moral debate any more seriously than a debate about the properties of phlogiston or luminiferous aether?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          X:

          If you’re trying to argue that “Christianity, properly understood, supports same-sex marriage” and you mis-state the relevant position of the largest Christian denomination

          Your claim is that Catholics use “natural” in a way unlike how it is defined in the English dictionary, so that, by this definition, “homosexuality is unnatural” doesn’t mean what we think it means. Yeah, I got it ten comments ago. Thanks.

          Now, back to my point: do some Catholics say “homosexuality is unnatural” using words as they are defined in the dictionary? If so, then my concern stands.

          I’m still no closer to seeing what you think the difference actually is.

          Some people accept the claim of objective moral truth. I don’t. That’s my position.

          Surely the implication of this argument is that it’s always wrong to disagree with society’s moral opinions?

          Not from my standpoint. You’ve misunderstood my position, I’m afraid.

          if you continue to maintain that society is wrong, then on what grounds will you do so?

          This again is the moral relativism problem. I’m not (by the typical apologists’ definition) a moral relativist, so I’m quite happy to say that you or society is wrong (from the only platform I have, the rather puny Bob Platform).

          Your account of morality seems to leave no place for actual moral debate or reasoning.

          The opposite is the case. I have my opinion, and you have yours. If we’re eager to discuss our differences, perhaps opinions can be changed.

          I care about other people’s moral opinions because I think there’s actually a thing called morality about which one can have a meaningful opinion.

          Ditto. We’re all Homo sapiens. We’ve created a society, and morality comes from that.

          If I adopt your worldview and decide that there’s no such thing as objective morality, why should I take moral debate any more seriously than a debate about the properties of phlogiston or luminiferous aether?

          This is where I wonder if you’re just gassing on for the hell of it or if you actually are thinking before you write.

          Is the death penalty a more important issue to you than phlogiston? Yeah, me, too. I guess you’ve answered your question.

  • smrnda

    Mr X, churches can ‘perform’ marriages all they like, but it is a state institution. If a church performs a marriage without the proper state paperwork, it’s not a marriage. So the idea that gay people have a right to be ‘married’ since a church can perform a meaningless (from a legal perspective) ceremony is a non-issue.

    I mean, to me, that’s like arguing that my employees can’t complain if I pay them in monopoly money since, after all, it can be used to play monopoly. A ‘church ceremony’ marriage without legal recognition, is monopoly money – utterly worthless.

    Last I checked, it was illegal for hotels to discriminate in the manner you described. You either rent rooms to who asks for them or you don’t.

    With your ‘criminals’ example we’re bounded by what we can actually do, so I don’t bother with science fiction style hypotheticals.

    My take on gay marriage is I see no solid arguments that it harms anyone, and it does not take away any rights from those who oppose it, so I see no case against it. What rights would a person who opposes same sex marriage lose if it were approved?

    I mean, let’s say hypothetically that a Christian boss now has to cover benefits for someone’s same sex partner. To me, that’s like arguing a boss should have the power to grant approval or not on whether or not they like who you are married to.

    • Mr. X

      “Mr X, churches can ‘perform’ marriages all they like, but it is a state institution.”

      No. Marriage is a social arrangement existing prior to and independently of the state. The state may regulate marriage, but that doesn’t make marriage a state institution, any more than the fact that the state passes some regulations about parentling (e.g., taking children away from neglectful parents) means that parenthood is a state institution which can be altered at will by legislative fiat.

      “Last I checked, it was illegal for hotels to discriminate in the manner you described. You either rent rooms to who asks for them or you don’t.”

      So there will actually be compulsion?

      “With your ‘criminals’ example we’re bounded by what we can actually do, so I don’t bother with science fiction style hypotheticals.”

      Now you’re just evading the issue, which is whether or not running society along these lines would be right in principle, even if we were unable to do so for practical reasons. If you’d prefer, try imagining the government doing this a small number of criminals. Would the government be right to do so?

      “My take on gay marriage is I see no solid arguments that it harms anyone, and it does not take away any rights from those who oppose it, so I see no case against it. “

      My take is that the government would be actively promoting a falsehood, which is reason enough to oppose it, even if it doesn’t negatively affect anybody.

      • smrnda

        You’ve made my point 100%. You can’t think of any way that gay marriage negatively affects anybody. If something does not negatively affect anybody, why be against something being legal or recognized? The only issue is what the state ought to do in this case.

        Marriage is a social institution, and it’s been conceived of differently in different times and places. I see no reason why we shouldn’t be open to further changes because I can see absolutely no ‘authentic essence’ at all. Your parenthood example is worth noting – the family has always existed though the way we think of it has changed. Look up the Na group from China. They had families without husbands or fathers – people lived in matrilineal households where the children of a mother grew up, the children of the daughters stayed in the household, and monogamy was not the norm. Males would have sex with anybody but would stay living with their mothers and sisters and nieces and nephews. Legally though, in the US this would probably not count as a ‘family’ in the same way, but it’s simply arbitrary to me.

        Your only point is that it’s a ‘falsehood’ but this is simply your opinion. I think that marriage has, historically, been an abomination often the equivalent of slavery, and that it’s only become something decent since legislation was passed recognizing that rape could occur within marriage.

        Just a question – is the state recognizing a Temple to Zeus as a house of worship a case of the state promoting a falsehood? You seem to be arguing a Catholic perspective.

        On your prisoner example, if resources existed I’d say it would be fine, provided it could be guaranteed that prisoners would not be in danger of breaking out into society and causing harm. My take is no harm = no foul.

        Also, if you think the owner of a hotel has a right to refuse a room with a single bed to an unmarried couple, you should read up on the law. A hotel owner has no business even asking a couple if they are married. Last I checked you can’t discriminate in renting to a couple on the basis of their marital status. I don’t think that’s compulsion at all – if you can’t run the risk of renting to people who do things you disagree with, get out of the rental business. It’s one of those protected categories. I cannot refuse to rent you a room because you are a Christian or Catholic, and a religions person cannot refuse to rent a room to someone because of their marital status.

  • smrnda

    Mr X, I may have missed a key point in your prison example. In your example, both the prisoners and the public are being deceived.

    I would not oppose, for criminals who could not be rehabilitated, finding some way for them to indulge whatever drives they had provided nobody was actually harmed. I do, however, think it is wrong to deceive people because people want to know the truth of their situation. The public should be well informed (better than it is currently) about conditions in prisons. Prisoners should be given accurate details regarding their situation within reason.

    I’m thinking you’ll use this to say that since I oppose deception, regardless of who it makes happy, I should oppose gay marriage since it’s a falsehood. The problem is that, by what I take to be essential properties of a marriage, gay marriage does not fail to meet any of the essential properties at all, and so I see no falsehood. Is there love? Commitment? Emotional intimacy? Companionship?

    Your belief that it’s a falsehood hinges on you having different standards for what the essential properties of a marriage are. Yours are based (it seems) on certain religious teachings. Mine are based on observing how marriages are different from other relationships. I can’t declare your standards to be ‘false’ in the way I can declare the fact “Detroit is a city in Canada” is false.

    • Mr. X

      “I’m thinking you’ll use this to say that since I oppose deception, regardless of who it makes happy, I should oppose gay marriage since it’s a falsehood.”

      Actually I was planning on saying that since you oppose deception you have to reject the idea that laws should be based solely upon utilitarian principles, although the opposing gay marriage since it’s a falsehood could work as well I suppose.

      “Your belief that it’s a falsehood hinges on you having different standards for what the essential properties of a marriage are. Yours are based (it seems) on certain religious teachings. “

      Actually I’d say my objections are based on anthropology: heterosexual marriage is, as far as we can tell, a part of human nature; gay marriage is the sort of thing which only arises in a certain highly contingent moral and social environment; the two are different, and ought not to be confused.

      “Mine are based on observing how marriages are different from other relationships”

      I don’t think that the criteria you listed for marriage actually make it different from other relationships. Relationships between family members or close friends can have love, commitment, emotional intimacy, and companionship, but they’re not usually considered marriages.

  • smrnda

    I can kind of see how you might argue that since I’m arguing for utilitarian ethics that “why shouldn’t a socially useful deception be used? My ethics should be clarified: nobody should do anything to anyone else that they would not want done to themselves, in addition to the usual utilitarian ideas. The reason for the first is that it’s kind of an issue of fairness.

    Marriage is an institution created by people. Theater is a cultural institution created by people. Overall, it’s people who define what these things are, and the definitions are fairly messy. “Hydrogen” i s easy to define, the word is a label applied to some unambiguous thing.

    My take on marriage is I think it’s better defined by levels of love and commitment than heterosexual sex or reproduction. Sex goes on between men and women, even leading to reproduction, and in many cases nothing like a marriage is going on. A sexless marriage appears totally valid to me since I don’t think that’s a really important feature. Understandably many things similar (love, commitment, etc) go on on other relationships, but I think that they are more important than the sexual nature. The presence of heterosexual sex (to me) is a weaker indicator of ‘marriage or a relationship like marriage’ than the other ones. To me, I think religious people degrade marriage by making it all about sex.

    I’ll agree that historically, other features were regarded as more important, but I don’t see why tradition should be binding. People *today* are more concerned with issues of love and companionship. The standards used in the past were the standards of backwards, ignorant people, or people barely trying to survive whose vision was limited in terms of what life can be about.

    Plus, I take it very personally when people are against gay marriage since I’m in a civil union with a same sex partner. So tell me, why would you wan to make sure that I can’t take off work to help care for the person that I’m closest to under FMLA? Why would you want to deny me the right to put her on my health insurance? Why would you want to impede are visitation rights if one of us is hospitalized? My should I, as a taxpayer, be paying towards social security when I can’t make sure my partner gets benefits if something were to happen to me?

    I think the issue at heart is insecurity. Religion promotes the stalest, most repressive and boring idea for human relationships. Religious people have to convince themselves that, in spite of all evidence, they’ve got all the answers so they have to denigrate loving and healthy relationships that don’t fit their formula.

  • smrnda

    And on anthropology, just because something seems part of human nature does not make it good or bad. Racism and tribalism are pretty evident across cultures, but that doesn’t mean they are good.

  • Desiree

    Honestly I could care less whether christians accept SSM. Since when did their beliefs make laws in this country? Marriage is not a religious institution. Religion did not invent marriage, nor has marriage has been exclusively hetero or between two people. A simple google search shows many different forms of marriages throughout time in different cultures. Churches do not get to decide who gets married. The government issues civil marriage contracts and as such can not discriminate against gays. Unless christians can come up with a secular reason why SSM would negatively impact our country, who gives a damn what their religion says. Christians will have to deal with SSM like they did with interracial marriage. Eventually they come around to modern times, but usually they have to be forced. The effects of SSM will be the same as the day before it is fully recognized. None whatsoever. I will continue to be in my hetero relationship with my boyfriend. I will not be forced to marry someone of the same sex. No earthquakes or hurricanes. Children will be as safe as they were before SSM. Christians won’t be forced to marry gays in their churches. They need to quit whining and understand that their are others in this country with different beliefs than theirs.

    • smrnda

      You have to understand, many Christians DO believe that God came down from heaven, and handed the ‘official rules of marriage’ directly to them, and that they do own it. They might agree that it’s been different in different times, but they totally believe they *own* the institution.

      You’re using logic and reason here, and pointing out that my same-sex union with another woman isn’t going to stop you from having an opposite sex relationship with a man. Yet there are Christians who feel that if the State grants me and my partner some benefits, it’s stepping on their toes since they are being forced to acknowledge my relationship. (Apparently the tax exempt status on their churches isn’t forcing me to believe in their religion.) They also think that they need to save me from myself and bring me kicking and screaming to the truth as published by the pope or focus on the family.

  • Pingback: hefalimp cardijon

  • Pingback: air duct cleaning houston

  • Pingback: acheter cialis 20mg

  • Pingback: top article

  • Pingback: extreme premature ejaculation treatment

  • Pingback: online slots

  • Pingback: read here,

  • Pingback: prix cialis en france

  • Pingback: download music

  • Pingback: cialis rapide

  • Pingback: video

  • Pingback: great post to read

  • Pingback: cialis generic canada

  • Pingback: macarons kopen antwerpen

  • Pingback: how to last longer in bed for men pills

  • Pingback: payday loans online

  • Pingback: cialis acquisto sicuro

  • Pingback: acheter cialis pharmacie ligne

  • Pingback: automotive

  • Pingback: Arts and Entertainment

  • Pingback: related

  • Pingback: Continue reading

  • Pingback: how to last longer during doggy

  • Pingback: killcorps.com

  • Pingback: electroglasprober.info

  • Pingback: myfamilyexercise.info

  • Pingback: situs bokep

  • Pingback: Homepage

  • Pingback: cialis 20 mg posologia

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: mmpr licensed producers mmpr licensed producers

  • Pingback: gocougar.info

  • Pingback: olie

  • Pingback: buy youtube likes

  • Pingback: lawyer

  • Pingback: jasonkeefer.info

  • Pingback: epats.info

  • Pingback: xlovecam free tokens

  • Pingback: zhenrendoudizhu0004.info

  • Pingback: ecigs NZ

  • Pingback: how to control premature ejaculation naturally

  • Pingback: chest of drawers

  • Pingback: tomturbo.info

  • Pingback: Alex Begum profile

  • Pingback: Optimax Reviews

  • Pingback: eirm.info

  • Pingback: testinate 250

  • Pingback: cialis milano

  • Pingback: roz grammes

  • Pingback: nature's comfort reviews

  • Pingback: thai massage

  • Pingback: thai massage

  • Pingback: Sydney escorts

  • Pingback: cememc.info

  • Pingback: Sydney escorts

  • Pingback: Knox County criminal defense lawyer

  • Pingback: privacy policy

  • Pingback: www.floridasupremecourt.org

  • Pingback: kitchens

  • Pingback: kitchens

  • Pingback: kitchen cupboards

  • Pingback: entertainment

  • Pingback: Detroit

  • Pingback: simulateur-scellier.info

  • Pingback: lagunanigueltriathlon.info

  • Pingback: Flight Tickets

  • Pingback: document management software

  • Pingback: conectwebsites.info

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Real Estate

  • Pingback: sapjobsintheusa.info

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Realtor

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Real Estate

  • Pingback: DIRTY ARMY

  • Pingback: buy cheap likes

  • Pingback: garden

  • Pingback: law info

  • Pingback: buying product

  • Pingback: cialis quanto costa in farmacia

  • Pingback: buy ayahuasca

  • Pingback: web

  • Pingback: electric bikes

  • Pingback: este post

  • Pingback: how to last longer in bed first time for men

  • Pingback: edward maldonado

  • Pingback: salsa en malaga

  • Pingback: island

  • Pingback: Sports

  • Pingback: technology

  • Pingback: بفركس شركة

  • Pingback: dbz pictures

  • Pingback: Madden 15 Tips

  • Pingback: emily bailey

  • Pingback: how to find success in online dating

  • Pingback: sex cam

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: technology

  • Pingback: tech info

  • Pingback: protect

  • Pingback: Empower Network

  • Pingback: Drywall Finishing

  • Pingback: Faucet Repair

  • Pingback: youtube mp4

  • Pingback: Process Servers

  • Pingback: wordpress theme design company

  • Pingback: shakeology reviews unbiased

  • Pingback: wordpress plugin development

  • Pingback: kvar energy

  • Pingback: Chicago

  • Pingback: tips for summer hair

  • Pingback: amerikada sirket kurmak

  • Pingback: renta de autos en cancun

  • Pingback: New AC Tomball

  • Pingback: assisted living in Ann Arbor

  • Pingback: free business classifieds

  • Pingback: Northern Virginia Dryer Vent Cleaning

  • Pingback: premature ejaculation problems

  • Pingback: Honey Bee Removal Kingwood Texas

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: renta de autos en cancun

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: hyundai dealer naperville

  • Pingback: blogs

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: triglyceride fish oil

  • Pingback: used hyundai

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: info

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: volkswagen cars for sale

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: http://minecraftlikegames.com/

  • Pingback: battery operated candles

  • Pingback: eye doctors in ri

  • Pingback: 32 weken zwanger

  • Pingback: personal injury compensation

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: property for sale

  • Pingback: Illinois Service of Process

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: coupon

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: aaron KOCOUREK

  • Pingback: Buy Viagra

  • Pingback: quarto marquês

  • Pingback: spam

  • Pingback: Oklahoma City OK For Sale By Owner

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: Payday loans

  • Pingback: YOGA HK

  • Pingback: cialis mal di schiena

  • Pingback: geo news update

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: maxxim wheels

  • Pingback: santa maria home loans

  • Pingback: navy seals boots

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: webmaster

  • Pingback: my blogs

  • Pingback: bets10

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: bitcoin casino

  • Pingback: Learn How To Make Cash With Instagram

  • Pingback: Incest

  • Pingback: Sex

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: Bodyguards

  • Pingback: Nike Coupon Code

  • Pingback: IT Services

  • Pingback: blogs

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: plan to pay for college

  • Pingback: blogs

  • Pingback: online meat

  • Pingback: bee wild pest control

  • Pingback: sausages

  • Pingback: appliance repair Bronx

  • Pingback: Best whatsapp status

  • Pingback: dr oz free trial garcinia cambogia

  • Pingback: visit this blog-site

  • Pingback: appliance repair Yonkers

  • Pingback: info

  • Pingback: blogs

  • Pingback: Greenwich appliance repair

  • Pingback: click here to find out more

  • Pingback: juicy couture uk

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: mac data recovery guru

  • Pingback: webmaster

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: data recovery wizard

  • Pingback: Free Download Games

  • Pingback: Peoria appliance repair

  • Pingback: houston dental clinic

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: modere compensation

  • Pingback: cash for gold

  • Pingback: Baltasar sanchez haz

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: Baltasar sanchez haz

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: buy adderall online

  • Pingback: ambien online

  • Pingback: softball

  • Pingback: DUI Lawyers Denver

  • Pingback: guarrillasvip.blogspot.com.es/

  • Pingback: address book template for word

  • Pingback: carpet cleaning pretoria

  • Pingback: cracked seo tools

  • Pingback: appliance repair company

  • Pingback: inversé du 118000

  • Pingback: Anik Singal

  • Pingback: Tempe Glass Repair

  • Pingback: Our site

  • Pingback: web design perth

  • Pingback: plum lipstick

  • Pingback: tarot oraculo

  • Pingback: Chicago Appliance Repair Best Rated Best Rated appliance repair Chicago

  • Pingback: dead sea mud mask

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: Cannonball House Macon GA

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Devvon Terrell I Like It Ft Kazzie Pop Video Is Crazy

  • Pingback: Pest Control Richmond Texas

  • Pingback: epub gratis

  • Pingback: low cost insurance quotes

  • Pingback: notepad bluebox

  • Pingback: online drugstore

  • Pingback: get instant senior car insurance quote

  • Pingback: drugs that make you last longer

  • Pingback: wording for wedding invites

  • Pingback: apartments to rent in cardiff

  • Pingback: orange county bail bond

  • Pingback: click to get a coverage for auto

  • Pingback: slots games

  • Pingback: alexandria sunroom

  • Pingback: syracuse airport hotels

  • Pingback: nether hacks

  • Pingback: buy adipex

  • Pingback: buy accutane

  • Pingback: buy tramadol

  • Pingback: buy ativan

  • Pingback: buy xanax

  • Pingback: sunroom springfield

  • Pingback: experience gifts for men

  • Pingback: code promo zooplus

  • Pingback: buy ambien

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: live xxxx

  • Pingback: college football

  • Pingback: fishing reports

  • Pingback: best home security

  • Pingback: premature ejaculation cures exercises

  • Pingback: ubuntu 14.04 wallpaper 1920x1080

  • Pingback: Aspergers Quiz

  • Pingback: How Much Mortgage Can I Get

  • Pingback: race relations

  • Pingback: ambient meditation music

  • Pingback: Aspergers Quiz

  • Pingback: Aspergers Quiz

  • Pingback: Toronto Criminal Lawyer

  • Pingback: my kundalini

  • Pingback: banana blue

  • Pingback: Notre Dame

  • Pingback: sitio sobre canciones para bodas

  • Pingback: seo service plans

  • Pingback: yoga musics

  • Pingback: xylitol powdered sugar

  • Pingback: muskegon photography

  • Pingback: www.ath-m50.net

  • Pingback: Spa party

  • Pingback: Famosas desnudas

  • Pingback: apartamentos en los teques

  • Pingback: sexo

  • Pingback: water and weight loss

  • Pingback: Maryland Movers

  • Pingback: Farmacia por internet

  • Pingback: Camilo Concha

  • Pingback: home financing

  • Pingback: adwords kampány tervezés

  • Pingback: Pomsky

  • Pingback: Betsey Hapner

  • Pingback: n° de telephone

  • Pingback: Oregon Social Security Disability

  • Pingback: bajar de peso alcachofa de laon

  • Pingback: Gambling

  • Pingback: Unity 3d

  • Pingback: cupones

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: hearthstone arena guide

  • Pingback: sehack

  • Pingback: Gadgets for Men

  • Pingback: doTERRA International

  • Pingback: grafik komputerowy

  • Pingback: Appliance repair service center

  • Pingback: Home Improvement Company

  • Pingback: facebook hacked

  • Pingback: quick extender

  • Pingback: second hand clothing wholesale uk

  • Pingback: pret sur salaire

  • Pingback: commonwealth towers showflat

  • Pingback: StrategyDB.com custom TradeStation consulting

  • Pingback: cheap porn

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: harga kasur busa

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: arkitekter

  • Pingback: sex

  • Pingback: power washing

  • Pingback: vending machine

  • Pingback: free mass email software

  • Pingback: How to find a good personal injury attorney to help you with your accident or injury claim.

  • Pingback: web design company in india

  • Pingback: Green Smoke electronic cigarettes

  • Pingback: Company Directory

  • Pingback: child images

  • Pingback: Livejasmin Hack update

  • Pingback: www.triplesealinsulation.com

  • Pingback: costa del mar sunglasses

  • Pingback: sfi affiliate

  • Pingback: Gym Singapore

  • Pingback: toy schnauzer puppies for sale

  • Pingback: Gym Singapore

  • Pingback: seo

  • Pingback: Dylan Lupinacci

  • Pingback: Newport Beach CA

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: filtros de agua

  • Pingback: posizionamento google

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: vfxbyjames

  • Pingback: entrepreneur

  • Pingback: Reciprocal

  • Pingback: seamless gutters

  • Pingback: bahis sitesi

  • Pingback: بفركس شركة

  • Pingback: fashion blog

  • Pingback: chelsea ferguson porn

  • Pingback: real estate developers in jaipur

  • Pingback: Edirne Evden eve Nakliyat

  • Pingback: Opiniones de varias empresas

  • Pingback: no win no fee

  • Pingback: rehab loans

  • Pingback: a good locksmith

  • Pingback: real estate foreclosures

  • Pingback: vitamin c serum for face

  • Pingback: Who Is Carter Hargrave

  • Pingback: the plumbing cure

  • Pingback: alaska fishing

  • Pingback: more information

  • Pingback: data recovery raid iphone 5 crashed

  • Pingback: wakeupnow michigan

  • Pingback: Joe Pojman

  • Pingback: whozii

  • Pingback: cheap fifa 15 coins

  • Pingback: rushikonda

  • Pingback: jiffy lube oil change coupons

  • Pingback: have a peek here

  • Pingback: Ricker Construction - Snow Removal and Excavation Services in Harrisburg PA

  • Pingback: enrabar mulheres casadas

  • Pingback: télécharger films

  • Pingback: ejacultion precoce

  • Pingback: vaincre éjaculation précoce

  • Pingback: dr.gerald buchoff

  • Pingback: Something to do in Hollywood FL

  • Pingback: éjaculation précoce comment faire

  • Pingback: Julefrokost

  • Pingback: cum

  • Pingback: ripoff report

  • Pingback: It learning

  • Pingback: gambling forum

  • Pingback: Real Estate

  • Pingback: central bank

  • Pingback: blog template

  • Pingback: biznes plan

  • Pingback: Jeanette Aroyo

  • Pingback: Sondage StarOfService

  • Pingback: Preston Byrd

  • Pingback: triple 7 movers

  • Pingback: Earn money online

  • Pingback: centrum czesci

  • Pingback: gode webhoteller

  • Pingback: vapormax v

  • Pingback: proxy services

  • Pingback: wireless charger

  • Pingback: http://blogdexperts.com

  • Pingback: whale dc

  • Pingback: Discount codes

  • Pingback: english translation

  • Pingback: Christian Jewelry Company

  • Pingback: Antonia Berlingeri

  • Pingback: tropical vacation

  • Pingback: http://createdinchiangmai.com

  • Pingback: ganar dinero con youtube

  • Pingback: looney tunes surprise eggs

  • Pingback: University T shirts

  • Pingback: one more cup of coffee

  • Pingback: http://fordounsawmillwind.com

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: Detoxify

  • Pingback: computer accessories

  • Pingback: Seattle Web Design

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: ebay coupons September 2014

  • Pingback: view here

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: Free Samples

  • Pingback: 8bets10

  • Pingback: hacer un blog en wordpress

  • Pingback: rap beats for sale

  • Pingback: http://istanbulescortc.com

  • Pingback: Cord Blood banking

  • Pingback: Bail Bonds

  • Pingback: how do kids make money

  • Pingback: female hair loss

  • Pingback: turshi serapio

  • Pingback: vimax

  • Pingback: Taxi

  • Pingback: polecam link

  • Pingback: Tiffanie Craddock

  • Pingback: http://ritadavidson.com

  • Pingback: models las vegas

  • Pingback: Tiffanie Craddock

  • Pingback: witryna firmowa

  • Pingback: get more reviews

  • Pingback: fil-met

  • Pingback: http://sexynightladies.com

  • Pingback: lolita porn

  • Pingback: Designer Engagement Rings

  • Pingback: dream board vision board

  • Pingback: unlock at&t

  • Pingback: slupy ogloszeniowe

  • Pingback: dom seniora mazowieckie

  • Pingback: stropy filigran

  • Pingback: perimeter intrusion detection systems

  • Pingback: vintage

  • Pingback: Christmas Lights

  • Pingback: Cadre à lattes

  • Pingback: sell your house fast

  • Pingback: cialis without prescription

  • Pingback: buy hydrocodone online

  • Pingback: my source

  • Pingback: child abuse compensation claims

  • Pingback: Osteopathy Five Dock

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: Straipsniu talpinimas

  • Pingback: how to buy traffic

  • Pingback: increase site visitors

  • Pingback: stop asian flush

  • Pingback: Sandra Kennedy

  • Pingback: www.busbyway.com/2014/06/25/the-levin-papantonio-law-firm-launches-xarelto-lawsuit-website-in-response-to-expanding-litigation/

  • Pingback: Numéros non surtaxés cdiscount

  • Pingback: TLSO

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: Professional development for women

  • Pingback: Positive Pregnancy Tests

  • Pingback: work at home edu reviews

  • Pingback: rinnai tankless water heaters

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: Rob Palano

  • Pingback: Student Loan Debt Relief

  • Pingback: Skydive PA

  • Pingback: Bic Ctx

  • Pingback: Vadim Enikeev

  • Pingback: Apple Passbook App Advantages

  • Pingback: Tens Handheld Electronic Pulse Massager Unit

  • Pingback: Sohbeto Dalariniz

  • Pingback: goophone i5c mtk6572

  • Pingback: Get Free Bitcoins

  • Pingback: import z chin

  • Pingback: Child Abuse

  • Pingback: Join the illuminati

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: alarme maison gsm

  • Pingback: own boss

  • Pingback: Hosting Windows Peru

  • Pingback: Save My Nature

  • Pingback: worksheets for kids

  • Pingback: bodybuilding supplements

  • Pingback: Polaris RZR Parts

  • Pingback: http://webcancun.net

  • Pingback: diwali wishes in english

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: http://yuzmek.com

  • Pingback: Free Viagra

  • Pingback: online pharmacy cialis

  • Pingback: http://vanphongpham3m.com

  • Pingback: online sports betting

  • Pingback: online cialis

  • Pingback: Free Porn

  • Pingback: porn movie

  • Pingback: diwali greetings

  • Pingback: süperbahis

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: Mayday Games Review

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: nutritionist advice on weight loss

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: Taxi to Gatwick

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: my blogs

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: http://www.bypassicloudlock.net/

  • Pingback: Araku

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: spy camera pix

  • Pingback: schlüsseldienst düsseldorf

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: online dress shopping

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: source

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: http://flympd.com

  • Pingback: showbox app

  • Pingback: erotique

  • Pingback: Casino

  • Pingback: lawyer

  • Pingback: poker

  • Pingback: Myrtle Beach South Carolina Oceanfront Condos

  • Pingback: fetichisme

  • Pingback: Luxury Family Holidays

  • Pingback: Mexican pharmacy online

  • Pingback: sliced pebble tile

  • Pingback: molotov mitchell

  • Pingback: dream board

  • Pingback: online visionboards

  • Pingback: watch This Is Where I Leave You hd

  • Pingback: coupons

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: teen fuck

  • Pingback: Enhance Your Life With Juice Plus

  • Pingback: sexy emails

  • Pingback: http://thomsonfxpro.net

  • Pingback: http://stadt-zuerich.net

  • Pingback: sexy emails

  • Pingback: naples dog walker

  • Pingback: cabanaboy42

  • Pingback: buy steroids

  • Pingback: http://kaesemacher.net

  • Pingback: http://mozgoreklam.com

  • Pingback: Saucy Saturday

  • Pingback: http://nymonclerjackets.com

  • Pingback: http://mermtrans.com

  • Pingback: http://pittsburghmovietimes.com

  • Pingback: kanapki warszawa

  • Pingback: Toronto Product Photography

  • Pingback: http://snap-save.com

  • Pingback: Toronto Product Photography

  • Pingback: http://suncashadvance.com

  • Pingback: verification

  • Pingback: festzinsen anlegen

  • Pingback: http://xavierssong.net

  • Pingback: Thetahealing

  • Pingback: container

  • Pingback: Bellevue Dentist

  • Pingback: wczasy nad jeziorem

  • Pingback: best scary movies on netflix instant

  • Pingback: http://rugbyseacadets.com

  • Pingback: Opciones binarias

  • Pingback: http://qushape.com

  • Pingback: kulki proteinowe

  • Pingback: http://casaquadro.com

  • Pingback: resource

  • Pingback: http://ici-meme-2013.com

  • Pingback: JT Foxx

  • Pingback: http://foreignfridays.com

  • Pingback: http://nvmweb.com

  • Pingback: gurtoertil

  • Pingback: http://takingsurvivors.com

  • Pingback: Rap Blog Woman

  • Pingback: Ken Yamamoto

  • Pingback: Darian Braun Coco Amo

  • Pingback: play free online slots

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: viagra penis

  • Pingback: visit this site

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: seo training

  • Pingback: http://humanisticmathematics.com

  • Pingback: http://ireachmobi.com

  • Pingback: Fire Phone

  • Pingback: απ?φ?α?ε??

  • Pingback: http://suze-formation.com

  • Pingback: Escorts in London

  • Pingback: http://podemi.net

  • Pingback: zobacz

  • Pingback: hidden vip black friday deals this year

  • Pingback: online poker

  • Pingback: penis cakes

  • Pingback: Derron Sanders of SG Capital Group Mi

  • Pingback: businesses to start up

  • Pingback: randall e. turner

  • Pingback: new blog

  • Pingback: Silver Eagle Bullion Coins

  • Pingback: traduceri legalizate

  • Pingback: süperbahis

  • Pingback: hotmail

  • Pingback: superbahis

  • Pingback: superbahis217

  • Pingback: bet365

  • Pingback: koszule robocze

  • Pingback: Christmas

  • Pingback: polecam

  • Pingback: zobacz oferte

  • Pingback: this site

  • Pingback: about

  • Pingback: my source

  • Pingback: web design network

  • Pingback: bag printer

  • Pingback: Best astrologer india

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: my website

  • Pingback: shopping blog

  • Pingback: https://www.facebook.com/answerplaza

  • Pingback: SKATEBOARDS

  • Pingback: real estate marketing

  • Pingback: the response

  • Pingback: orange county bail bonds

  • Pingback: get redirected here

  • Pingback: explain it videos

  • Pingback: blogging

  • Pingback: Hats

  • Pingback: how to lose weight fast

  • Pingback: Muay Thai training camp

  • Pingback: instapaydayloansonline

  • Pingback: Yacht Charter

  • Pingback: porn movie

  • Pingback: Personal fitness trainer Udim

  • Pingback: zxtofficial

  • Pingback: Happy new year public response

  • Pingback: buy real youtube views

  • Pingback: guess emoji answers

  • Pingback: como abrir un correo de gmail

  • Pingback: Sena

  • Pingback: online poker

  • Pingback: vender en argentina

  • Pingback: my website

  • Pingback: your blog

  • Pingback: shellac manicure scottsdale

  • Pingback: auto insurance companies

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: driving school brooklyn

  • Pingback: Leptin Supplement

  • Pingback: ติว toeic

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: cheap home internet

  • Pingback: my

  • Pingback: best free local sex

  • Pingback: fdpod.com

  • Pingback: cheapest viagra

  • Pingback: kserokopiarki kolorowe

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: Miranda Kerr

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: our site

  • Pingback: wisetrail

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: bus tours to new york

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: fowllowme

  • Pingback: credit repair service

  • Pingback: goji actives composicao

  • Pingback: business financing

  • Pingback: expert interview coach

  • Pingback: Caixa

  • Pingback: balotelli

  • Pingback: this site

  • Pingback: great info

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: my blog

  • Pingback: Free Reverse Cell Directory

  • Pingback: my source

  • Pingback: my

  • Pingback: used cars sale nj

  • Pingback: PagesBlanches

  • Pingback: rich dad education post

  • Pingback: Spyhunter Download

  • Pingback: my website

  • Pingback: http://zyczeniaonline.blog4u.pl

  • Pingback: your site

  • Pingback: business loans

  • Pingback: Liberty Tax Franchise Reviews

  • Pingback: Locksmith Oklahoma City

  • Pingback: broadband internet

  • Pingback: new porn vids

  • Pingback: Aditya Mittal

  • Pingback: buy remy hair extensions

  • Pingback: check my blog for updates

  • Pingback: lab testing

  • Pingback: Naturkosmetik

  • Pingback: Arvind Pandit

  • Pingback: hot lesbian sex

  • Pingback: Work from home

  • Pingback: MAKE MONEY ONLINE

  • Pingback: home internet service providers

  • Pingback: yellow october

  • Pingback: great info

  • Pingback: pr ajansı

  • Pingback: getting a small business loan

  • Pingback: car loans

  • Pingback: wedding dresses toronto

  • Pingback: my source

  • Pingback: my blog

  • Pingback: debt consolidation credit card

  • Pingback: best credit cards to have

  • Pingback: phone services

  • Pingback: this site

  • Pingback: blogger

  • Pingback: strona

  • Pingback: saran wrap to lose weight

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: free xbox live codes

  • Pingback: Online Loans

  • Pingback: mobile phones

  • Pingback: town home

  • Pingback: texas real estate

  • Pingback: (816) 847-1699 KC RV DEALERSHIPS

  • Pingback: wedding toronto

  • Pingback: süperbahis

  • Pingback: AUTOMOBILE LOANS

  • Pingback: NO MONEY DOWN CAR LOAN

  • Pingback: sleep mask

  • Pingback: Celebrity Pictures

  • Pingback: demenagement strasbourg

  • Pingback: http://admediacash.com

  • Pingback: call termination

  • Pingback: emergency locksmith

  • Pingback: improve your relationship

  • Pingback: corporate strategy group

  • Pingback: funerals perth

  • Pingback: buy now

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: archive box

  • Pingback: government made simple

  • Pingback: electric scooter for kids

  • Pingback: tesla mod reviews

  • Pingback: health

  • Pingback: buy house

  • Pingback: Flat Fee MLS IL

  • Pingback: Errors and Omissions Insurance

  • Pingback: purificadoras de agua

  • Pingback: home improvement

  • Pingback: here source

  • Pingback: Skype Pirater

  • Pingback: resource

  • Pingback: article source

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: domain

  • Pingback: best singles chat

  • Pingback: buy youtube views cheap

  • Pingback: survival equipment

  • Pingback: moodle mod resource view.php id=139

  • Pingback: GM Recall

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: free online credit score

  • Pingback: Apple

  • Pingback: Full Time RV Living

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: online work from home

  • Pingback: Storage Auctions

  • Pingback: my

  • Pingback: residential painting

  • Pingback: free ps vita games

  • Pingback: Ryan Eagle The Scammer

  • Pingback: see this

  • Pingback: ideas here

  • Pingback: painting games

  • Pingback: radiology assistant

  • Pingback: quick ways to make money

  • Pingback: physician assistant

  • Pingback: car insurance online

  • Pingback: motocourier

  • Pingback: zobacz

  • Pingback: look at this

  • Pingback: Ali

  • Pingback: tutaj

  • Pingback: star wars rebels episode 4

  • Pingback: your shopping Headquarters

  • Pingback: online first aid course

  • Pingback: Porn movies

  • Pingback: puzzle games online

  • Pingback: 2014 hackear hackear 2014

  • Pingback: David Turbyfill

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: cat memes

  • Pingback: comment

  • Pingback: Business Opportunity Seekers

  • Pingback: Celebrity Feet

  • Pingback: poster begin anywhere your passion will guide you

  • Pingback: my blog

  • Pingback: dental assistant schools

  • Pingback: my

  • Pingback: general

  • Pingback: ninja blender 1200

  • Pingback: penis enlargement

  • Pingback: comment

  • Pingback: ofermedia

  • Pingback: Flavon Max Plus

  • Pingback: GreenSmoke

  • Pingback: auto recyclers

  • Pingback: nootropic stack

  • Pingback: galaxy 105

  • Pingback: URL

  • Pingback: betting companies

  • Pingback: online casino offers

  • Pingback: call of duty advanced warfare hacks

  • Pingback: hip replacement lawsuit

  • Pingback: online casino slots

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: top online casino

  • Pingback: Challenge Coins

  • Pingback: blogger

  • Pingback: p1 video magnet

  • Pingback: alopecia androgenica

  • Pingback: resource

  • Pingback: natur energie ag

  • Pingback: this site

  • Pingback: nyt sommerhus

  • Pingback: how to promote your fanpage

  • Pingback: ของขวัญปีใหม่เก๋ๆ

  • Pingback: plastic surgery pittsburgh

  • Pingback: Cheltenham Physio

  • Pingback: your first million review

  • Pingback: Naheed Ali

  • Pingback: Justin Bryte

  • Pingback: best cardsharing server cccam

  • Pingback: expert interview coach

  • Pingback: free online coupons

  • Pingback: how to cure nail fungus

  • Pingback: radarandlaserforum

  • Pingback: ​Celebrity Chef

  • Pingback: hotel reservations

  • Pingback: how to sell items in amazon

  • Pingback: matthew justice

  • Pingback: blogger

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: noveller novell

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: Gas Contractor Paradise Valley

  • Pingback: personal gps tracking systems

  • Pingback: Kosmetik Tagesdeals

  • Pingback: penile stretchers

  • Pingback: Online Reputation Expert

  • Pingback: the language of desire review

  • Pingback: water purification systems

  • Pingback: steroids legal

  • Pingback: water ionizers

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: general

  • Pingback: how to buy hacks

  • Pingback: fuckbook

  • Pingback: aimjunkies #1 hack provider

  • Pingback: make money online surveys

  • Pingback: Remove Fake Likes

  • Pingback: customer service seminars

  • Pingback: Removing Facebook likes

  • Pingback: how to cure yeast infection

  • Pingback: online photography courses

  • Pingback: especialistas en comercio electronico

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: seo techniques

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: Big Boobs Japanese MILF

  • Pingback: Diets that actually work

  • Pingback: kopen van sieraden

  • Pingback: Bathroom Remodeling

  • Pingback: cynkowanie galwaniczne

  • Pingback: risk management

  • Pingback: aeg

  • Pingback: smart phone credit

  • Pingback: this site

  • Pingback: women-shopping

  • Pingback: how to buy hacks

  • Pingback: anti aging

  • Pingback: xxxcams.mobi

  • Pingback: c p r classes

  • Pingback: women's clothing

  • Pingback: yacons

  • Pingback: Citizen BY0106-55h

  • Pingback: fast payday loans

  • Pingback: funny jokes

  • Pingback: round glass table top

  • Pingback: Drug Rehab Los Angeles

  • Pingback: Taimur Khan is a co-founder of Blueberry

  • Pingback: send homeopathic medicine to usa

  • Pingback: Dr. Elhagaly

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: how to get a girl

  • Pingback: Embroidery

  • Pingback: goo.gl/ymonDn

  • Pingback: sell my house privately

  • Pingback: technology and gadget

  • Pingback: canyoning in dalat

  • Pingback: seguidores de instagram baratos

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: fast payday loans

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: find info

  • Pingback: Plombier de Draveil

  • Pingback: Vitrier Thiais

  • Pingback: www

  • Pingback: business pattern

  • Pingback: stephen jones

  • Pingback: alkaline water benefits

  • Pingback: XXX

  • Pingback: Celebrity Images

  • Pingback: free porn

  • Pingback: property advertiser

  • Pingback: jovialmum entertainment

  • Pingback: health london

  • Pingback: strona

  • Pingback: Toronto Criminal Lawyer

  • Pingback: kliknij tutaj

  • Pingback: black campuss tour

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Autoapprove List

  • Pingback: fundacion malaga

  • Pingback: Monroe Dustman

  • Pingback: SEO

  • Pingback: skin care

  • Pingback: homepage

  • Pingback: cash for cars

  • Pingback: RankTronix

  • Pingback: Home Improvement Resources

  • Pingback: cheap electricity company in texas

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: proverbs

  • Pingback: Afrobeats

  • Pingback: huntsville commercial plumbing

  • Pingback: music lessons

  • Pingback: abogados en tampa

  • Pingback: pharmacy india

  • Pingback: Travel Insurance Reviews

  • Pingback: muslim marriage events

  • Pingback: masöz

  • Pingback: capital markets skusenosti

  • Pingback: depression pills

  • Pingback: host gator coupon

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: hostgator coupon codes

  • Pingback: Putt Putt for Charity

  • Pingback: funny videos

  • Pingback: earn more money with Fantastic Fundraisers

  • Pingback: education

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: sincere giving is power

  • Pingback: aviation law

  • Pingback: Fenton Academy

  • Pingback: auto repair tempe


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X