Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
645

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have heard from many (you might be one I don’t recall) that Gay people would rather be straight, if they had their choice. Well, since we don’t know how they became Gay to begin with then why chance placing a perfectly normal child in a Gay home? How do you know that the influence of two Gay “parents” will not turn the child Gay? How can anyone know these things at this point?[/quote]

You are still pretty baffled about the gay origin thing I see. Does it matter how you became a heterosexual? You still look at gays as diseased. This is why I call you close-minded, ZEB. It is a label I use that is very appropriate in this one issue. I am right about this, you will not open your eyes… I posted links to what happens when we put children in gay families, and just as I said you didn’t like what you saw. And like I said before, that is a shame. You have made up your mind, and that’s okay.

I am not stereotyping you in any way which is inappropriate, ZEB. You are the archetypical “homosexuality is a sin because my book says it is so” christian. Don’t be ashamed, ZEB. You have said it over and over and over. Now that we have that out of the way, I will repeat myself and say that I do not think you are a homophobe. Someone with an irrational hatred of gays would not hire them or treat them with the respect that you do. And that’s a start.

As for my opinion counting more: no. But due to our differing stances in this issue one of us will be more open to the idea of change and one of us will be more closed to the idea of change. You have your bible and your 5000 year old institution, and I have real people I see almost every night, and the struggle for their acceptance in a society which has traditionally shunned them. This is slowly changing, though. And that’s a start.

Dude, so you can mischaracterize me but not vice-versa? :slight_smile:

Seriously ZEB, I’m sorry if what I see in the adult gay culture is not a bunch of club-hopping, ecstasy-swallowing, rave party freaks. Everyone was young once, even you. :slight_smile:

You see, those gays grow up and realize that they want to be productive members of society, so they finish college, get jobs (male nurse, dance choreographers, interior decorators :)), and settle down… just like us. Some of them even want to marry, start a family… right now, the only ones who can do that are lesbians because they can get an in-vitro procedure. Wouldn’t it be nice if gays could adopt as well?

We have very strict regulations and screening for those who adopt children, and I think this is a good idea. Let’s keep the adopting gay couples in mind though. Wouldn’t it be even better if they were MARRIED gay couples? These are stable adults with good jobs, ZEB. Think about this for second. What if they aren’t diseased? What if they are just different? OPEN THAT BRAIN!!! :slight_smile:

[quote]No I don’t think they are second class citizens. There are a multitude of people who for one reason or another are “different” in some way. That does not make them “second class citizens.”

However, we have to make sure that before we change a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population that it is the correct move. Remember, it’s not just about homosexuals who happen to want to get married. It’s about the family unit, children and social norms. [/quote]

Not changing a 5000 year old institution, ZEB. How many dang times are we going to do this? Gay marriage is not going to bother hetero marriage… ugh.

“Oh well, Lisa just married Michelle, and I was going to buy you a ring, honey… but now I just don’t see the point.”

This is not changing a 5000 year old institution (which has changed a bunch of times over the eons anyway), this is starting a new one, ZEB. Are you worried that they might make us look bad because they might be better at being married than we are? I’m certainly no poster child for hetero marriage myself – I’m divorced now for eight years. I’m draggin’ us down, man!! :slight_smile:

Ah hah ha! Now we come down to the real difference between you and I in this. Notwithstanding your objection to homosexuality, THIS right here is why you are against gay marriage. No babies, right? But let that top part of your head creak open just a little bit, and you might discover that there is an albeit small but still significant segment of our population which is comprised of good people (like my friends, who I feel necessary to stand up for in this forum for some reason… oh well maybe I just like to argue) who just happen to be gay and want to adopt or otherwise start a family. Think about this, ZEB.

The species is propagating itself just fine the last time I checked… in fact, it could be argued that we are propogating a little too much in places… thus we have our orphanages and foster homes filled to the brim, and a severe shortage of adopting parents. But wait… what about those stable gay couples we’ve been excluding because… why? They aren’t legally married?

Hmmm… I just thought of another solution to our orphan and unwanted children proliferation problem in this country: ABORTIONS! We’ve tried the abstinent youth thing, but it doesn’t work for shit. And it doesn’t do anything for the kids who are already here. Do we want to help these kids or not? I say let’s do SOMETHING… the fact that the idea of including pre-screened gay adopting couples into the mix kills two birds with one stone is just a serendipitous bonus in my book.

I will repeat myself yet again because you must have missed it the first thousand times: no shit they want acceptance… what a friggin’ newsflash!

Golly, what a shocker… some people who have endured hatred, prejudice, and even physical abuse because they are different don’t want to be reviled anymore… and even want to be respected as equals to those who have repressed and oppressed them? Can you imagine? Wow.

You’re worried about our societal norms changing? Guess what? They change all the time, ZEB. Our country is still standing strong. Interracial couples are now everywhere… our country is still strong. Women are serving bigger and bigger roles in the military… our country is still strong. The kids who live down the street from me wear their pants hanging down so far that their asses hang out, and they look like retards… our country is still strong.

I have this feeling that many conservatives feel the country is spinning out of control… are you like this? They fight every tiny transformation like it is the end of our way of life, to be replaced by something smaller and crappier. They shake their sticks and claim “this country is going to hell in a handbasket!” All the while we grow into the most powerful nation that the world has ever seen. And why is that, ZEB? Because we change, we adapt. This gay marriage issue is not a virus, it is an adaptation, pal. But it looks like we just aren’t ready to evolve yet. Such a shame.

This wasn’t a hateful post, was it? You see, we can talk about gay marriage without throwing in the whole getting married to your sister, a child or a cow thing. :slight_smile:

646

I have only two comments:

I am white and am marrying a black women. No big deal, it’s 2005 right? Has nothing to do with same sex marriage right? The great state of Alabama removed their law prohibiting inter-racial marriage (by the way we ARE both of the same race-Human) in 2002. Oh, sure it was not “enforced”, but to treat the stupidity of regulating marriage rights based on skin tone like it was “long ago resolved” -like riding the back of the bus (which around the time of the Korean war…like MASH…not too “long ago” in reality) does not reflect history.

As soon as “Everybody” can accept my relationship without prejudice and still not accept same sex relationships I will accept a dissociation of the questions. Until then, I view anyone objecting to gay marriage as equivalent to those who oppose my marriage to a women with more melanocites.

Also, two seventeen year old meth addicts can get married at city hall in “F*** Christ” shirts vowing to only produce children that will eat Christian flesh yet somehow a nice couple of guys/girls who love each other and consider themselves Christian should not be allowed to “taint” marriage. Knock, knock real world calling…

647

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think this is the main sticking point in where my questions were unclear - which Bible, who decided what to include, and why? Or are you referring to the 4 Gospels that were included as “The Bible?” Why not the book of Timothy, for example? Don’t get me wrong, I think a lot of what’s in the Bible is fantastic. Love thy neighbor and whatnot is great stuff, I’m a big proponent. When it comes down to specific matters of doctrine and practice, however, I’ve found that much doesn’t hold up.

Perhaps you could shed some light on what you mean when you say “which Bible?” I thought I was pretty clear with the very long list of Bible translations that have been around a long time and they are very well respected by all but the Internet quacks (not referring to you please don’t misunderstand). By the way “Timothy” is in the Bible, both the Catholic and Protestant versions.
[/quote]

My mistake, I meant the Gospel according to Thomas (I remembered it was a “T” name). I lost my bookmarks a while ago in a Windows crash and was in a hurry to post earlier. The one where the child Jesus cures an old man of erectile dysfunction.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/

Just one example of the Apocrypha - I was trying to get at the idea that these books were purposely exluded from the Bible. Not necessarily with a hidden agenda, but nonetheless, they were. Why? And why were the current books in most Bibles included? I realize this is a huge topic, but I wanted to get it out there that the Bible as an anthology was collected by men for specific reasons. Other men sat in judgement of the texts before them and decided “These writings are the word of God.”

I’m not trying to skirt the question, but I don’t have the time to go through and read the entire Bible again and pick out every problem I have with it - suffice it to say for now that I feel many churches have stepped well beyond the bounds of what the Bible was actually saying and saying what they think it meant to say on some things, as well as failing to see that many rules are not specifically applicable to us in our times.

Okay - you can accept what has been handed down through time. I cannot. Too much political influence has fallen on the development of the book for my acceptance of this as what God really wanted to say.

Aristotle said this as well, but he’s not in the Bible. Sure, most if not all writings deserve consideration, discussion, and subsequent acceptance or rejection. The problem in the quote from the letter to Timothy is who decides what is Scripture.

[quote] - my comments are inside the quote, marked by **

However, I would like to mention that the “laws” set forth in Leviticus 18 as “Sexual Laws” are still upheld today. Everyone of them, but one. Can you guess which one that is? Homosexuality!

There are several “Sexual” laws which God spoke to Moses about.

Briefly:

Don’t have sex with a relative.
**Genetic deformity and possible animosity within the family.

Don’t have sex with your mother
**Well no crap.

Don’t have sex with your fathers wife (stepmother).
**I believe this is rooted in honoring one’s parents, specifically the father’s property.

Don’t have sex with your sister (step sister etc.).
**Same as above

Do not have sex with your offspring’s daughter.
**Again, very pragmatic roots

Do not have sex with the daughter of your fathers wife.
**Parental respect, family strife again

Do not have sex with your father’s sister.
**Genetics, family strife, respect of parents

Do not have sex with your mother’s sister.
**Same

Do not have sex with your Aunt.
**Pretty sure father’s and mother’s sister covers this, but same reasons anyway

Do not have sex with your daughter in law.
**Your son would so kick your ass…

Do not have sex with your brothers wife.
**Property and family relations

Do not have sex with both a woman and her daughter.
**Jerry! Jerry!

Do not have sex with your wifes sister while your wife is still living.
**Needed for marrital law and relationships between tribes, certainly

Do not have sex with your neighbor’s wife.
**Especially if he has a shotgun

DO NOT LIE WITH A MAN AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN.
**Couldn’t help but notice you switched away from using sex here. Don’t think it means anything, just a nice change of pace :slight_smile: Only pragmatic reasons I can think of are procreation and the “uncleanliness” of putting a penis in what would have then been a very unsanitary place.

Do not have sex with an animal.
**Many obvious pragmatic reasons
[/quote]

And I can think of strong pragmatic reasons fitting within the Jewish tradition for all but that one.

I know you don’t mean any disrespect - I do want to point out that he was teaching Latin at my high school based upon his assignment from the church, not as a matter of comparative advantage. He wasn’t just speaking for himself, though - he’s friends with a good number of those people who have dedicated their lives to translating the texts of the Bible and other ancient Greek/Latin/Aramaic writings. They feel the same as him, that often the meaning is unclear.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc7.htm

This site takes your argument into account and presses further into literary devices to discern a different meaning. Is it not reasonable to conclude that we’re not sure what the term specifically meant?

Not to be purposefully argumentative either, but the Greek here is a translation as well. It was written in Aramaic originally and then translated into Greek. Already we’re at a secondary source.

I did. I found seemingly credible arguments on both sides, though those such as 100m pointed out seem to take a more holistic view of the interpretation.

I’m sure they did do a great job, but short of time travel, it can’t be perfect. Hell, how often do people on these forums in the same social structure have a hard time communicating?

To SOME of the world it’s “obvious.” It’s not so obvious to me, or apparently many other people out there.

Yes! It certainly could be! I see hope! :slight_smile:

[quote]
I see a lot more rationalization happening on the conservative side of the issue of gay marriage than on the liberal side.

[quote]

I should clarify - I meant rationalization in terms of the socio-political rammifications of homosexual marriage in a universal sense, including but not limited to religious texts. It seems that those against homosexual marriage argue within the religious vacuum, while those for it include religion in their scheme as well as secular/strictly philosophical considerations.

I’m trying, actually, but not finding anything. My resources are limited, though, obviously.

This is going to take some time, as anthropology is not my field, but these concepts have been explained to me by my friends who are in anthro/history/archaeology. Please send me a PM as a reminder.

Not necessarily better. Sometimes better (if it’s a crappy household, hetero or homo), sometimes less important (with a loving mother and father, or father and father, or mother and mother, or single parent, etc), it’s a fluid dynamic with literally millions of variables in personalities of the child and everyone he/she interacts with.

You’re skating pretty treacherous ice here - marriage doesn’t need to be there to have a loving father and mother :slight_smile:

That swill made my head hurt. I wanted to punch my monitor after almost every sentence on both FRC “insights.” It’s obvious from reading them that the author has no earthly idea how research works, and simply pasted in some sentences he thought looked damaging to proponents of homosexual rights. To dissect them here would take far too long - if you’d like a few examples, though, I’d be happy to point them out on request.

That’s not an attack on you, but on Timothy Dailey. I read his credentials, and while they seem impressive, he’s just flat out stupid when in comes to matters of research design and analysis. Not to mention he lacks education in psychology and sociology… this would be like me writing an “insight” on changing dance trends in modern theatre. Only I don’t have an anti-dance agenda.

Argh. ARGH I say!

Thank you for continuing a polite, civil debate, by the way. I do greatly appreciate it.

-Dan

648

(post deleted by author)

649

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
So if every state is to allow gays to be married, why not let men have sexual relationships with underage boys and girls? Why not let people have sex with animals? Why not just change all of our laws to “encourage” sin. What ever floats someones boat right? If an adult man is only attracted to little boys and girls, well that’s his preference right?

[/quote]

Your questions may be rhetorical but the answers to them all are known, and the reasons in each case have nothing to do with gay marriage. Somewhere about three miles above in this thread we have been through it all before.

650

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
So if every state is to allow gays to be married, why not let men have sexual relationships with underage boys and girls? Why not let people have sex with animals? Why not just change all of our laws to “encourage” sin. What ever floats someones boat right? If an adult man is only attracted to little boys and girls, well that’s his preference right?[/quote]

Ugh. Please. This argument is so weak it boggles my mind. Endgamer’s right, we did this to death already. Your slippery slopes do not apply, please try again.

Good luck.

651

(post deleted by author)

652

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
So I guess gay marriages should be OK, along with stealing, committing adultery, killing. Cause after all, if there is no God, why does it matter anyway?
[/quote]

I did want to comment on this particular screed, however. Tuffloud, do you know what it is to have responsibility to your fellow man, and to understand what it means to be a part of a society? Of course you do. Do you cooperate with others because if you don’t then you will be punished?

Some people do not understand what it is like to empathize with others, and we in the medical field refer to these people as sociopaths. The only reason a sociopath will not go on a rampage where he/she will fulfill all his/her desires in the simplest and most convenient fashion without a thought to the consequences of their actions is because they understand what punishment is.

Adult people do not need to be told “go to bed or else you are grounded”. You see, we are able to understand that sleep is important, and we know that we function better when we have enough of it, and we understand and desire the benefits of controlling ourselves and behaving in ways that are benficial to ourselves.

The next step after this is to focus your life on not only helping yourself, but helping others, too. This is a natural matter of course for someone who is able to let go of selfishness and see themselves as a part of something greater that matters more than themselves.

This is why there is no God, and still atheists like me are able to act in ways which do not lead to destructiveness (quite the opposite). I do not need the threat of hell to make me behave. I do not need a carrot (heaven) dangling in front of me to make me want to help others and live a life of what you would consider virtue.

I know why I am here. Do you? I wonder, because you lump gay marriage in with murder and stealing… you sounded very confused back there.

653

(post deleted by author)

654

(post deleted by author)

655

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hey glad you showed up!

and on, and on.

As to what lesson Jesus actually did have for us, it was to love one another. And there were never any limits placed on that love, other than the standard injunctions in the commandments.

Have you done the Lord’s lesson?

Now go thump your Bible a few thousand more words.[/quote]

Yes, he did preach “love.” I’m thankful for that too. The most important commandment (according to Jesus) is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The second most important: “Love your neighbor as you love Yourself.”

We fulfill neither of these commandments by lying to those we love! We only fulfill them by at least attempting to shed light on an issue which may be politically correct, but eternally wrong.

However, simply because the sin (all of our sin) is wrong that does not mean that we hate the person involved. As I have repeatedly stated we are to love the sinner and hate the sin.

As to your comment about “thumping my Bible:” If there is to be debate, there must be two opposing sides. I was under the impression that we (me and many others) were debating the Bible (at least at times) and it’s relative importance regarding homosexuality.

Sorry if I offened you, that was not at all my intention.

656

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Speaking of human error, the apostles invented the church. When they’re quoting the Man they’re serving their purpose.[/quote]

Naturally, they were serving “the master.” They were chosen for this action. That does not mean that what they are claiming is untrue.

I think you made this claim one other time as well. I will ask you once again, please point out the specific errors to which you refer.

Perhaps you need to take another look at Revelations (and the rest of the Bible as well) while using one of Krishnamurtis pieces of advice
“only a mind that is in a state of inquiry is capable of learning.”

657

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But I wonder how you can have faith in those ten commandments when they have come from a book that is (to your mind) quite flawed.

Actually, I expect good old Moses probably made them up too. I have faith in them because they are minimal, and line up with Christ’s teachings.[/quote]

Who is Christ and why would you care about his “teachings?”

658

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
You are still pretty baffled about the gay origin thing I see. Does it matter how you became a heterosexual? You still look at gays as diseased. This is why I call you close-minded, ZEB. It is a label I use that is very appropriate in this one issue. I am right about this, you will not open your eyes… I posted links to what happens when we put children in gay families, and just as I said you didn’t like what you saw. And like I said before, that is a shame. You have made up your mind, and that’s okay.[/quote]

Hold on there lothario, I do think there have been many (you as well) who have stated that homosexuals did not chose to be that way, if they could change it they would. Now you can’t have it both ways!

They are either very happy to be Gay, and would not change it, or they would change it if they could. Which is it? If over all they are not happy, as most suggest then why place a child in the care of two Homosexuals? Is it not possible that they would influence that child to become Gay.

Are you ready to make a claim right now that you know for sure exactly why people become Gay?

You do not go far enough with your assesment. That is my only complaint. Yes, I’m a Christian who thinks homosexuality is a sin. However, if I were to become an Atheist on Monday morning I would still think that that particular behavior runs contrary to nature and would still be opposed to it.
I have looked at this issue from many different angles.

Sorry your friends are shunned. I know that must be painful for you and I think the people who shun them need to wake up!

I did not mischaracterize you. You are under the impression that the entire Gay population is like your close circle of Gay friends. I’m not buying that!

[quote]Seriously ZEB, I’m sorry if what I see in the adult gay culture is not a bunch of club-hopping, ecstasy-swallowing, rave party freaks. Everyone was young once, even you. :slight_smile:

You see, those gays grow up and realize that they want to be productive members of society, so they finish college, get jobs (male nurse, dance choreographers, interior decorators :)), and settle down… just like us. Some of them even want to marry, start a family… right now, the only ones who can do that are lesbians because they can get an in-vitro procedure. Wouldn’t it be nice if gays could adopt as well?[/quote]

No, I think it would be a mistake until we understand why Gay people are Gay. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you want children influenced in that direction? We don’t understand this yet. Does it not make sense to wait until we do?

You are not catching my drift, sorry I’m trying to be as clear as possible. I never stated that they were “diseased” (once again you mischaracterize). I stated that we don’t know why Gay people become Gay. Until we do, I am not, and never will be for placing a child in a home with two Gays, married or not.

It’s not about being open minded, it’s about being careful with children. Why be reckless? What is the gain? Why not find out the facts before moving in that direction?

[quote]Not changing a 5000 year old institution, ZEB. How many dang times are we going to do this? Gay marriage is not going to bother hetero marriage… ugh.

“Oh well, Lisa just married Michelle, and I was going to buy you a ring, honey… but now I just don’t see the point.”

This is not changing a 5000 year old institution (which has changed a bunch of times over the eons anyway), this is starting a new one, ZEB. Are you worried that they might make us look bad because they might be better at being married than we are? I’m certainly no poster child for hetero marriage myself – I’m divorced now for eight years. I’m draggin’ us down, man!! :[/quote]

You obviously didn’t read the white paper study that I posted.

Gay partners are not better (at least at this point) than heterosexual partners.

Please read this. You don’t have to change your mind, but at least read it:

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

I thought the “real reason” was because of my religious conviction? Now you claim it’s a financial consideration. How about both, and even more!

Actually, I have more concerns about that happening than two homosexuals marrying. Remeber, marriage is mostly about the kids, if you are good parents that is.

My objection has nothing to do with not enough people propagating the species.

Do you know why the foster homes (are there orphanages anymore?) are so filled? Because unmarried couples are having babies that they discard like an old shoe. Your answer is to place this unwanted child in the care of two homosexuals who are far more unstable than a typical married couple. Please read the facts (see white paper above).

It only creates more problems unless it is completely researched, which it has not been as yet.

The majority of Americans have not abused any homosexual. This fantasy you have of a great class of people who have been abused is nonsense. Who is currently “oppressing” Gay people? Are you talking about the minority of idiots who use slang directed at homosexuals? There will always be a small minority of fools who are clueless. You can’t legislate that away.

I am for interraacial choice. I am also for women involved in the military. Up to this point I have not given much thought to a teens pants hanging down their backside, but off the top of my head I don’t like it…:slight_smile:

The 5000 year old institution of marriage has not changed relative to the one man and one woman “rule.” And, the way it looks right now (67% of Americans against Gay marriage) it’s not going to change for a long time …ahh :slight_smile:

I think in many ways we are better than we have ever been. In other ways we are worse than we have ever been. However allowing Gays to marry is not a step in the right direction!

No, we are not ready to “evlove” in that direction. And I am very thankful for that. :slight_smile:

Yes, I know the sister, Cow, and child part will be coming…many years down the road. See Levitical law…to understand.

659

This is an attack on the paper, not Zeb.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
[/quote]

As a physician, it is his duty to have a cohesive writing style and submit his work for peer review. As a physician, he should not be citing articles published in a newspaper in writing an academic paper. As a physician, he should stay out of trying to comment on complicated psychological subjects he does not understand. As a physician…

Okay, I’m done with that part of it.

What am I supposed to take away from this paper? This is an honest question; I didn’t see any real point of presenting fragments of information that served no purpose.

Here’s what I did take:

  1. Fat people suck. Those who place the largest burden on our healthcare system and cost taxpayers lots of money are horrible human beings. And, being fat is unhealthy. (Before you say the paper was about homosexuality, not poor eating habits, please realize that the line of reasoning present is EXACTLY the same)

  2. Gay men have to be careful about very real physical aspects of the anus. I agree. So do heterosexual couples having anal sex. This does not make being homosexual evil or sinful. Just a little tricky.

  3. Gay = the sex. Well, no shit, you study the “bathhouse gays” and you’ll get skewed statistics. They’re not a fully representative population; they represent, GASP!, the promiscuous homosexual population. How do heterosexual statistics look when you look at Amsterdam, certain parts of Thailand, or even Vegas?

  4. Gay people have lots of sex with the opposite sex. Especially lesbians. Um… well, geez, I never would have thought that many people realizing a same sex attraction might be confused about it initially, or turn out to be bisexual. After all, they’d always been taught that men marry women and ride of into the sunset or something like that. Denial can make people to crazy things, like, overcompensate and have lots of sex with heterosexual partners.

  5. Gay people don’t live as long for some mythical reason… no, wait, the AIDs outbreak. That’s right, those gay men who were a part of the original AIDS outbreak a while back are now reaching end stage and dying or have died, thus making it look like simply being gay causes premature death to some particularly retarded statistician. Yes, that’s what happened, they caught the gay and died. It’s so clear.

  6. Unmarried homosexuals have sex outside of relationships. …so do unmarried heterosexual people in relationships who aren’t married, or are married, or are dead, or are all of the above and in the Senate.

The quality of the sources you’ve presented is severely hurting the secular claims to homosexuality being “bad,” Zeb. Please, do not take personal offense - you seem to be a great guy, and you can think gay men having sex is distasteful all you like as long as it doesn’t result in negative action, which is the position you’ve said you’ve taken. But, if these are your sources in moving to your position that homosexuals should not be married (barring the Bible), your house is built on a Louisiana sinkhole. They have logical fallacies, misunderstandings, and blatant misleading statements out the Wazoo.

I highly recommend a book called “Asking the Right Questions” as a guide to analyzing arguments. It’s a good compendium of the most common problems in poor arguments.

-Dan

660

My quote feature did not work last time, sorry Dan.

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
My mistake, I meant the Gospel according to Thomas (I remembered it was a “T” name).[/quote]

Honest mistake.

Wow, you said it, what a huge topic that would be to undertake. I suspect it would be far more challenging than simply proving that the Bible is plainly agasint homosexuality (as that was an easy one).

From what I understand books that were excluded were done so because of authenticity purposes. In addition to this those who “screened” the books were also inspired by God in the direction which they traveled.

Christians do not claim that the humans who penned the books of the Bible were always accurate in everything they said or did. We simply believe that the Bible is right when it claims that God guided these men in their task of writing Scripture, in such a way that the result is an infallible book.

The apostle Peter undoubtedly said some foolish things during his lifetime, but God did not allow him to clutter up the Bible with any of those blunders.

I would like to know what exactly “doesn’t hold up” in your opinion. Please be specific.

I would not have brought up the topic. However, you voiced an opposing opinion claiming that Bible is not accurate. I think this cries out for some examples.

Furthermore, you stated that communal upbringing is “fairly common.” Once again I asked for specific civilizations which supported successful “communal living” with no help from either of the two original parents.

Forgive me for my insistence, but as I have stated: the only way that I imporve is to try to understand what I currently do not know. When you claim something and then provide no examples I am wanting for a response.

I would ask that you be more specific relative to your reference “many churches.”

I do think that there is little debate as to the importance the “moral laws” of the Bible have, and how they influence the world on a daily basis.

Again, unless you cite specifics I am at a loss to answer.

Again you make a claim yet you have no evidence to back up that claim. Please tell me specifically the “political influence” to which you refer.

I’m not being argumentative, however it’s difficult to carry on a debate when you use so many blanket generalizations.

I would like to mention that the “laws” set forth in Leviticus 18 as “Sexual Laws” are still upheld today. Everyone of them, but one. Can you guess which one that is? Homosexuality!

There are several “Sexual” laws which God spoke to Moses about.

Briefly:

Don’t have sex with a relative.

Don’t have sex with your mother

Don’t have sex with your fathers wife

Don’t have sex with your sister (step sister etc.).

Do not have sex with your offspring’s daughter.

Do not have sex with the daughter of your fathers wife.

Do not have sex with your father’s sister.

Do not have sex with your mother’s

Do not have sex with your Aunt.

Do not have sex with your daughter in

Do not have sex with your brothers wife.

Do not have sex with both a woman and her daughter.

Do not have sex with your wifes sister while your wife is still living.

Do not have sex with your neighbor’s wife.

DO NOT LIE WITH A MAN AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN.

Do not have sex with an animal.

Tell me which of these is now acceptable and very much appropriate in our society? The sexual laws of Leviticus are still respected to this day! Well, all but one.

Are you claiming that there is a “pragmatic” reason that you cannot have sex with your neighbors wife? Other than it is wrong according to the Bible? What about your sons wife? Neither situation would place you in any jeporday of obvious disease. What if you really, really love that person? Come on now, let’s be fair to this group. Why can’t they have sex with those respective people?

My point in posting the “Sexual Laws Of Leviticus” was to compare these laws with the “Sacrificial Laws” which you mentioned early.

Your point, I believe was since we do not honor any sacrificial law, why honor any other Levitical law.

I posted the above list in order to point out that every other sexual law on the ancient Levitical list is still honored today. All but one that is.

Point being, homosexuality is indeed mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. It is a forbidden practice. You can make various claims as to why one should be broken, but what does that mean?

The following is one of the ones which there is no doubt about! 100meters entire argument was based upon the word “arsenokoitai” meaning “male whore.” This was proven to be completely false! The word for “male whore” was “Pornos.”

Congratulations! You have found one of the many pro homosexual web sites which are now proliferating through out the Internet!

These are the very sites which I have been talking about over the past six weeks! They appear suddenly with the miracle answer as to why the Bible simply loves homosexuality. In short they are a joke! Is this supposed to replace the standard version of what every credible interpreter has stated regarding the early writings?

This is no slam against you, you didn’t produce the web site. However, if you go to a sizable library you are more apt to find real information with proper definitions.

The number of pro homosexual web sites do not in any way take away from the work produced by the thousands of real Bible Scholars who have dedicated their lives to interpretation of the scriptures. They do however offer a quick rationalizaton to anyone who wants to believe that the Bible does not in fact condemn homosexuality, when it so clearly does!

“h ouk oidate oti adikoi qeou basileian ou klhronomhsousin? mh planasqe; oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moixoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai.”

Please check ancient Hebrew. You will get basically the same definition! There were homosexuals thousands of years ago. The practice was looked down upon and in fact condemned in the Bible, several times. All word games aside!

The only way out is to do what 100meters did , that is to grab a word here and there and attempt to call into question it’s meaning. "What is the meaning of “is?” It’s something that good defense lawyers do to mezmerize a jury. However, it has little effect in a debate of this type. And has almost nothing to do with good theological debate.

We can debate why we are here. Who God is. Why Jesus Christ came to this earth, etc. But the meaning of a word is simply too easy.

We have far to many tools for that technique to work. We have at hand ancient Greek and Hebrew resources. The Bible is agaisnt homosexuality. The various words used to describe the act prove it. I gave you one, there are others.

Holistic view? Um, the word “arsenokoitai” means "men sleeping with men. The word “pornos” means “male whore.” If Paul meant “male whore” he would have said “pornos.” Some things regarding the Bible are difficult to understand, this is not one of them!

We can go through each “anti-homosexual” verse in the Bible if that’s what you would like to do. 100meters and I were doing that, however he has taken a break (or something).

Again, please point something out that is contradictory so that we can both be on the same page with your thought process.

Not quite, as I have stated to my friend lothario. If I were not Christian I would still oppose Gay marriage as it seems wrong on so many fronts.

The natural order of things (outside the theological persepective) does not allow two men to propagate, which was and is the original intent of marriage.

The people who argue for Gay marriage with in the scripture must first come to the realization that the Bible is pointedly opposed to homosexuality on every level.

The only way they can “use the scripture” is to twist the meaning of several words and rationalize many other verses. It won’t work, but I give them an “A” for effort.

I think statistics also prove that when a child is raised with a mother and father who loves them they have a better start in life.

No, but one thing does need to be there, and that is COMMITMENT. Time has proven that without marriage commitment is lacking. Without commitment children suffer. End of story!

-Dan

Thank you for the opportunity!

Zeb

661

(post deleted by author)

662

It’s a blessedly slow night in the ER tonight, and you wanted to know what I think of the rest of your post, so here ya go!

[quote]I’m sure you’d say, “well molesting children isn’t right!”

Well no kidding it’s not right. Look inside yourself and ask “why isn’t it right?”. After all if your saying that gay marriages shouldn’t be against the law, then why can’t men have sexual relations with under aged boys and girls? Who are you to say it isn’t right just like gay marriage…right??

You telling yourself that molesting children isn’t right is because there is a little voice inside you telling you that. Do you know what that voice is? Well, it’s God. [/quote]

Nope. Freud called it a superego. It is the socialization process which we use to determine right from wrong. Those sociopaths I told you about earlier (I knew this was coming… geez) don’t have that voice, and must rely on what punishments there are vs. risk of being caught to control themselves. If you want to worship that voice in your head which we call your conscience, go right ahead, I will not stop you if you want to be silly.

However, I will caution you to remember that worshipping that voice will not get you anywhere further in this life or the next than you could have done just by yourself without the silliness otherwise.

In fact, it could be argued that your belief system is holding you back, but let’s not go there. I have stated many times on these forums that religion is not all bad or all good, it is just a force that depends on the wielder. Great achievements have been made because of this social lever we call religion, just as horrific atrocities have been committed through it too.

I have answered this by my other post already, but I’ll reiterate just for a sec:

Right and wrong matter, and it’s not because some supernatural being decided it. Our greatness as a species has depended on our ability to overcome our innate distrust of one another and cooperate to achieve a common goal which is a better life for all. Throughout history, the social mores and rules of behavior have changed here and there, but we generally recognize that killing one another for no reason is counter-productive, and fosters the mistrust of one another that we are trying to overcome. This is not God which has made this advancement. It is US. The human being.

We created the mystical, invisible, unquestionable overlords as a lever, or a catalyst, to help bring about that social order. Ironic, isn’t it… that we are so proud of our separation of church and state in the US, and it was the merging of the two which helped us in the beginning to become what we are today.

It can be argued that the lever isn’t necessary anymore, and that certainly holds water in this modern age. With our improved ability to communicate with each other, we can keep the peace and address our differences in ways which do not require a belief in some afterlife to provide the motivation. We are now able to educate ourselves to such a degree as to be able to see the differences between ourselves, and not let those differences draw lines between us and separate us into camps which will hate.

This is just like going to the gym, buddy. After a while, you don’t need a trainer to make you show up to work out. You can work on your development without the taskmaster saying “one more, c’mon, one more!” Some of us like our trainers for other reasons, though, so we keep him around.

I just happen to work out by myself, and maybe I smile a little bit to myself when I see someone giving money to a guy that they don’t really need to just to achieve the same results he/she could get with a little self-education and self-reliance, but hey… that’s just me. Church, gym… hamburger, cheeseburger. Same damn thing.

[quote]If you really want to think about laws. Where did laws come from? Why have any laws? Laws can be traced back to the bible. What do you think the ten commandments are? They are laws!

The bottom line is that there is a God and we are supposed to follow his rules, period. People just don’t want to be held accountable for there actions anymore. That is why all these things that were never meant to be OK are becoming OK. People don’t want to believe that there is a God and there are rules.[/quote]

And just for future reference, there were laws WAY before your book. Wow. Your bible came from laws that were already around, pal. There is nothing original in your book. Well, at least about the laws thing.

[quote]How do you guys really think we got here? Do you think that we just evolved out of some other organism? Well where did that organism come from? How in the world do you get intelligent design and order out of chaos. If you look at an automobile, you know that there is creator. After all how could a car with an internal combustion engine just evolve out of a rock or something. Well then how in the world could you believe that something that is a million times more incredible and complex like the human body just came out of nothing? It just boggles my mind how anyone could believe in evolution or the big bang. No where in scientific history has anyone showed intelligent design and order coming out of chaos, nowhere. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that showes human beings evolving from primates. Where is the “missing link”. Shouldn’t there be thousands or millions of these skeletons? Why are there still monkeys around if they changed into humans? I believe in micro evolution - that animals adapt to their surrounding enviornment. I don’t believe that an animal can go from one DNA structure to another. There is absolutely no evidence that the earth has been around for billions of years.

If this were the case, there would be humans, shoulder to shoulder across the entire planet. The moon would also be touching the earth because every 1000 years, the moon becomes 800 feet closer to the earth. This is a scientific fact. Do the math. After billions of years how could the earth still be here with the moon smashing into it?[/quote]

You are not strong in your science education, and I will not heckle you for this. All of those questions have been answered by people who are a great deal less of a smart-ass than myself. All of them, and then some. MUST… RESIST… DON’T WANT TO LOOK LIKE A DICKHEAD… UUHHNNNNN…

HOLY CRAP! THE MOON WOULD HAVE CRASHED INTO THE EARTH?!!??!!??!! AARRRGGG!!! YOU ARE SO ABSURDLY okay. Sorry about that. It’s hard to control myself sometimes. I hope you understand.

The moon hasn’t always been creeping closer to the earth. It has “wobble” in its orbit, just like all orbiting bodies do. The Earth gets closer to the sun, and then farther from the sun, etc. It’s something called a cyclical process, because it goes back and forth in cycles. When you look at a cyclical process like orbits, and then apply a linear projection to them, you introduce TREMENDOUS amount of error. Thus, we look up, there’s still a moon… hmmm… maybe something’s wrong with the model we drew up to describe the behavior of the moon in its orbit?

No wait, I have a better explanation:

THE ENTIRE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IN ALL OF THE CENTURIES OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY ARE ALL WRONG!!! THOSE PESKY E=MC2 THINGYS ARE ALL WRONG!!! They must be, if we are to believe that your book is the indelible word of God. Dinosaur fossils? Nah. Couple thousand years old, tops. That makes absolute sense. It is all a lie.

Yeah, there’s an error of a million years this way and that… when we are talking about hundreds of millions of years, that is. Hardly “completely flawed” if you ask me. A one percent error is pretty damn good, and beats the hell out of the “we added up all the people’s ages in the bible since Adam and Eve” technique. Honestly, do you really, REALLY, think that the earth is only a couple of thousand years old? Wow.

[quote]Anyways, this is where the gay marriage thing and everything else that is bad stems from- Not wanting to believe in God and Gods rules. Why are people all of the sudden coming to the assumption that everything they feel like doing is OK?
[/quote]

You have a very, very long journey ahead of you if you want to catch up at the evolutionary bell curve with the rest of us. I believe in you, however… I know that you can do it if you try. I hope that you are not mixing fabrics that you wear, nor working on the Sabbath.

Take care.

663

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
The reason that evolutionists resist reality and true science is that they are either knowingly or unknowingly being influenced in one of the New Age religions, probably Secular/Religious Humanism, Atheism, or Agnosticism, and that influence is making it impossible for them to be objective. Evolution isn’t science.[/quote]

So my atheism is a New Age religion? Cool, do I get a certificate or something? Actually, no… I want an Atheist Decoder Ring™. That’s pretty awesome, I didn’t know I was in a secret club. Where’s my uniform? Do we get to have secret meetings and stuff? I want a secret meeting at my house.

I particularly like what you said about evolution not being science. There’s a saying “if you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish,” and this applies quite well to this particular situation. You have absolutely no idea what makes a science what it is, so you are the absolute best person to judge what is and what is not a science.

Yeah… gene mutation, physical adaptation, natural selection… it’s all bullshit. This is completely reasonable to believe. There is no such thing as a genetic mutation. Therefore, there can be no evolution. You’re right, what the hell was I doing in college all those years? THOSE LYING SOB’S!!! I WANT MY TUITION MONEY BACK!!!

You’re right… I’m busted. In my search for truth and the nature of the universe, I came across a piece of evidence which PROVED that there is an invisible supernatural force which creates us, binds us together, and flows from all living things. It is this force which gives us life, and love, and powers all natural processes. Now that I have discovered this, I can jump over twenty feet in the air, deflect laser blasts with my lightsaber, and choke people by extending my hand toward them. Oh waitaminute… I’m sorry, that’s Star Wars. Nevermind.

You were referring to the vast evil underground conspiracy by all scientists to bring about something called “change”. Yes, the more we learn about our universe, the less and less relevant your religion becomes. Sorry if it’s not what you wanted to hear, but it’s the truth. But take heart!

There’s still time to stop us. All you have to do is start burning books that have anything to do with science. Then, you teach children that there is a mystical invisible bogeyman who’s gonna get them unless they do as they’re told. Make sure that you take actions to discourage free thinking, and especially the kind of thoughts which lead to creativity… because that’s when people become more and more self-aware and they might realize that there isn’t a God after all. So… no painting, no music, no poetry, no movies, no sculpture, no drama, no books… all unless they reinforce the idea of what you want people to believe. DO NOT FORGET THIS: you must maintain strict control in this. The minute people have some freedom to think, then they will become dangerous to your oversight.

All of these nebulous problems you state up above are exaggerations in most cases, but I like YOUR idea of proof: “because this book says so”. That makes much more sense.

Please do not pretend that you have even an elementary grasp of physics… let alone chaos theory. It seems to me that you label anything you don’t understand as “deception”, and that means that you believe the scientific world is full of lies… which you do. Well, I guess that makes sense to me, at least. But like I said before: you can get over this if you try. People like me will help you if you want, but you have to want it. We cannot make you open your eyes… you have to take the first step yourself. Just believe me when I say that there’s a great big world out there waiting for you. I wish you all the best.

664

(post deleted by author)