Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
589

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
I wonder how many people would believe in ALL of the far fetched stories that are told in the Bible if they were told of them when they were legitimate decision making adults.
[/quote]
I became a Bibel Believing Christian when I was around 19-21, and only after reaserching it for a couple years.

You do relize that there are a lot of bible believers that hold to the day-age theory?

[quote]
Just goes to show how strong brain-washing can be when it’s started at such a young age.[/quote]
Again, I was in my twenties before having any real intence exposure to Christianaty.

St. Patrick and St. Augustine, two of the greatest christians who ever lived, became so later in life if memeroy serves )i.e. when they were not children). The man who wrote Amazing Grace became a christian later in life, not when he was a child. Einstien believed more and more in God, as he got older and older. BTW, there are countless examples of people who believed as children and later rejected as adults. It can splice either way. I could give dozens of more examples, but you aperently don’t comprend much about things like philosaphy or comparative religions.

590

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
BowFlexFan wrote:
If one can argue that a bahaviour harms society (and not the two consenting people), then would it become moraly wrong?

Very nice. You see, this is why morality is a fluctuating thing. A society’s mores will tend to define just how important an individual’s rights are when the interests of an individual come into conflict with the interests of society. Although, one could even make for a compelling argument that says that this is a thing which is defined by each individual, i.e., some people are more thoughtful of others than of themselves.

So… good question. I like to break it down to how much harm we are doing here to society when we place an individual before the rest of us. Our society is pretty tough, and can take quite a bit of punishment, but that’s no excuse to go about trying to wreck it. And since I am all about situtional ethics and moral relativism, I would need to know what exactly we are doing here before giving you a yes or a no.[/quote]

ok, if the issue is about relativisim, then I guess I will have to prod from a different point.

So I take it you don’t belive in absolute truth, and believe everything is relative. Well then, I have two more questions.

A: Is the statement “there is no moral truth” a true statement?

B: Regarding relativism. Lets say that a hundred people are asked to point to magnetic north. 99 people point every which way. One guys pulls out a compass, studies the stars, examines maps, and then points which way is magnetic north. While for the other 99, what is only relative to them is tehre own opinions, does this mean that the one guy actually pointing north is wrong?

I.E. is the way he is pointing to be true north relavtive to the other people or not? Since we know that magnetic north exists, and is only in one direction, weather you think so or not.

Which goes to this, like a true north or magnetic north, how would you say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no “true north” for morals?

BTW, you have to answer point A before you can deal with point B.

Have a nice day, and good luck.

591

[quote]BowFlexFan wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
I wonder how many people would believe in ALL of the far fetched stories that are told in the Bible if they were told of them when they were legitimate decision making adults.

I became a Bibel Believing Christian when I was around 19-21, and only after reaserching it for a couple years.

Some people strongly believe that the world is less than a few thousand years old.

You do relize that there are a lot of bible believers that hold to the day-age theory?

Just goes to show how strong brain-washing can be when it’s started at such a young age.
Again, I was in my twenties before having any real intence exposure to Christianaty.

St. Patrick and St. Augustine, two of the greatest christians who ever lived, became so later in life if memeroy serves )i.e. when they were not children). The man who wrote Amazing Grace became a christian later in life, not when he was a child. Einstien believed more and more in God, as he got older and older. BTW, there are countless examples of people who believed as children and later rejected as adults. It can splice either way. I could give dozens of more examples, but you aperently don’t comprend much about things like philosaphy or comparative religions.[/quote]

Augustine was seriously screwed up with an unhealthy fixation on his mother. What’s so great about that? He’s also one of the main corrupters of the Jesus message, which has clearly been forgotten by most modern American Christians. I have read the Confessions and City of God, in Latin. So please don’t bring it up. Also the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. I’ve been examining religion as part of my graduate work and it’s not a very pretty picture.

Belief in God does not equal being a Christian (or Moslem or any other religion). Religion and God are not the same thing.

God is ineffable. Religions are human inventions to help them deal with the unknowable. I find it very interesting that every religious person, from whatever religion, seems to project themselves into their understanding of God and some how knows all that there is to know about God because they read this one book. Also how their faith becomes the trump card in any argument.

I like how so many people condemn Islamic fundamentalists because they want to shape the world to fit their religious fancies, but it’s okay for the various Christians in the US to do the same. And how everybody is so sure they are right and the other guys are wrong.

Most people who converted to Christianity or became followers of the Jesus movement in antiquity were adults. The very first followers didn’t have the New Testament stories or mythology, they just thought Jesus was a righteous reformer (of Judaism)and teacher. They didn’t think he was the son of God or the founder of a new religion. They thought he came to clean up Judaism, get rid of foreign (especially Hellenistic) influence in Jewish affairs and to make observance more pure and accessible to ordinary Jews.

WMD

592

[quote]BowFlexFan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
BowFlexFan wrote:
If one can argue that a bahaviour harms society (and not the two consenting people), then would it become moraly wrong?

Very nice. You see, this is why morality is a fluctuating thing. A society’s mores will tend to define just how important an individual’s rights are when the interests of an individual come into conflict with the interests of society. Although, one could even make for a compelling argument that says that this is a thing which is defined by each individual, i.e., some people are more thoughtful of others than of themselves.

So… good question. I like to break it down to how much harm we are doing here to society when we place an individual before the rest of us. Our society is pretty tough, and can take quite a bit of punishment, but that’s no excuse to go about trying to wreck it. And since I am all about situtional ethics and moral relativism, I would need to know what exactly we are doing here before giving you a yes or a no.

ok, if the issue is about relativisim, then I guess I will have to prod from a different point.

So I take it you don’t belive in absolute truth, and believe everything is relative. Well then, I have two more questions.

A: Is the statement “there is no moral truth” a true statement?[/quote]

No. The moral truth changes depending upon the situation at hand. If I kill someone just for fun it’s wrong. If I kill someone to prevent them killing myself or another, it’s right.

[quote]B: Regarding relativism. Lets say that a hundred people are asked to point to magnetic north. 99 people point every which way. One guys pulls out a compass, studies the stars, examines maps, and then points which way is magnetic north. While for the other 99, what is only relative to them is tehre own opinions, does this mean that the one guy actually pointing north is wrong?
[/quote]

Ask Galileo about being the one right guy when everbody else is wrong BUT in agreement with each other.

[quote]
I.E. is the way he is pointing to be true north relavtive to the other people or not? Since we know that magnetic north exists, and is only in one direction, weather you think so or not.

Which goes to this, like a true north or magnetic north, how would you say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no “true north” for morals?

BTW, you have to answer point A before you can deal with point B.

Have a nice day, and good luck.[/quote]

Morality is relative depending upon what culture, time period and situation you’re talking about. This completely unlike True North.

Let’s ask this question: Is killing always wrong or are there situations where it is the right thing to do? The Decalogue says “Thou shalt not kill.” It makes no equivocation on this point. However, there are many examples of murder, warfare and revenge in the Bible as well. (NOt to mention incest, rape, polygamy and the enslavement of other human beings.) In which of these situations was killing wrong and in others justified and why?

If something is harmful, say, to a small tribal group that needs complete conformity to its cultural and social norms just for it’s survival, does it necessarily follow that a much larger and more stable culture needs to be as rigid to preserve itself? Or can the larger society absorb and even thrive on greater diversity?

Think on this: When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 by the
Romans, it made many of the holiness and observation rules in Leviticus moot. Thus people are not condemned for not going to the Temple to make sacrifice and atonement, because there is no Temple. Also it would seem that other aspects of the holiness code are no longer applicable, like eating shellfish, wearing cloth of two different materials, shaving the hair around the temples, touching menstruating women, etc. Why is it then that homosexuals continue to be condemned by Christians? Where is the verse that says “Choose 1 from column A and 2 from column B and thou shalt be holy”? When did it become okay for all you moral absolutists to pick and choose which aspects of Biblical law to follow?

I look forward to your response.

WMD

593

We have seen that there is no reason to sanction gay marraige in this country. We began the debate on the Bible and it went from there into other areas, namely tradition, science, politics etc.

I now see that the debate is veering back to the Bible. The same old falsehoods which were thrown out early in the thread and refuted are being dusted off and thrown back in the mix.

You want to get back to the Bible…okay if you wish.

[quote]WMD wrote:

Think on this: When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 by the
Romans, it made many of the holiness and observation rules in Leviticus moot. Thus people are not condemned for not going to the Temple to make sacrifice and atonement, because there is no Temple. Also it would seem that other aspects of the holiness code are no longer applicable, like eating shellfish, wearing cloth of two different materials, shaving the hair around the temples, touching menstruating women, etc. Why is it then that homosexuals continue to be condemned by Christians? Where is the verse that says “Choose 1 from column A and 2 from column B and thou shalt be holy”? When did it become okay for all you moral absolutists to pick and choose which aspects of Biblical law to follow?

I look forward to your response.

WMD[/quote]

You have gotten caught before trying to pit the Old Testament against the New Testament. It was pointed out quite clearly exactly where homosexuality has been forbidden in the New Testament.

You don’t like the answer but it’s very clear. Allow me to post them again for you:

Rom 1:26
Rom 1:31
1 Cor 6:9
Col 3:5
1 Tim 1:10
2 Tim 3:3

The above are six direct scriptual passages which speak against homosexuality! I know you don’t like them you want to twist and turn their meaning, and will try no doubt. However, that never works.

Now let me ask you a question:

where in the New Testament does the Bible promote homosexuality? If it was an accepted practice then you would think that it would be found somewhere.

Marriage is mentioned in over 60 Bible verses in the New Testament. Not one time do any of theme ever refer to a someone marrying another of the same gender. However there are many that refer to one man one woman! That in addition to the “anti-homosexual” passages listed above makes a pretty clear case aginst homosexual marriage, based upon the Bible.

All you have to do is be logical. Christ spoke of repenting from your sin. Sex outside of marriage was considered sin. Do you think that he or any of the Apostles would have promted sex between two people of the same gender? Especially in light of the fact that there was no “gay marriage?”

Your arguments for gay marriage are weak to begin with. When you bring the Bible into the argument you lose even more points.

Now, could we get back to debating homosexal marriage aside from the Bible?

594

I gotta say that I didn’t read this entire thread, but here’s my comments…

I support gay marriages…

…as long as both chicks are hot!!!

595

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
So in other words, whether or not killing is allowable in the bible is dependent upon certain situations. Umm… does that maybe sound familiar at all? Situational ethics? I was under the impression that the ten commandments were commandments… not suggestions. Although I must admit that THOU SHOULDT PROBABLY TRY TO AVOID KILLING does sound a little more realistic and relevant to us than what we see God ordering to Moses in the OT.
[/quote]

Come on now dude, you have to use your brain at least a little. Criterion are not situations. The difference is that the criterion exists before the situation. Determining what to do based on a situation without existing criteria is situational morals. Already having a set of criteria that define what is right and what wrong in any situation is not situational morals. It was determined before the situation. So the moral judgement is not based on the situation but the criterion that came before it.
Get it?

Agreed!

AIDS originated in the homosexual population. So unless there is some unknown genetic issue that makes people gay and makes them develop the HIV virus out of thin air, it would have to be the homosexual lifestyle that created the virus. In other words, it was their sexual practices that developed this issue. You know, not to be crude, but putting things where things were not designed to go. Going against function and design has consequences, and AIDS appears to be just that.

Good one!

[quote]
I would just beg to differ on this. If you want a behavior that is destructive to body and mind, then look no further than gluttony. You have worked with very obese patients – bad health all around, right?

A gay person isn’t harming him or herself just by being gay. This is very different, for example, from a very fat person, because they are definitely hurting themselves by being very fat, and behaving in a way that maintains their lardbuttocity.

And yes, lardbuttocity is a real word. :)[/quote]

You have raised a good point. The homosexual act is different than an attraction for the same sex. So just like alcoholics can stop drinking, while still being alcoholics, gays can stop engaging in unnatural sexual behavior. In fact, I have posted a good website that has proof of this fact (peoplecanchange.com). So just having impulse to do something is different than acting it out.

So just so we are clear, my objection is the homosexual act or behavior. Everyone has problems or dysfunctions and I don’t hold that against anyone as long as they are not acting on it.

596

[quote]ZEB wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
Will everyone give this thread a break? If gays want to marry, give them the fucking dignity to do so. You don’t have to like it, but damn they deserve a life too. It’s ok, the world will not crumble and there will be no prophetic catastrophies. There are waaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger issues in this world to deal with than gay marriage. Please quit cluttering this site with this fucking nonsense.

On behalf of all of us who have been debating this issue. welcome to the thread. I for one hope that you contributions will continue to come in at least weekly if not daily. :)[/quote]

I don’t know Zeb, the depth of this guys intellectual capacity and the logic of his arguments may be just too much for us! LOL

597

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ZEB wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
Will everyone give this thread a break? If gays want to marry, give them the fucking dignity to do so. You don’t have to like it, but damn they deserve a life too. It’s ok, the world will not crumble and there will be no prophetic catastrophies. There are waaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger issues in this world to deal with than gay marriage. Please quit cluttering this site with this fucking nonsense.

On behalf of all of us who have been debating this issue. welcome to the thread. I for one hope that you contributions will continue to come in at least weekly if not daily. :slight_smile:

I don’t know Zeb, the depth of this guys intellectual capacity and the logic of his arguments may be just too much for us! LOL
[/quote]

You have a point there. It seems that some people pay more attention to NFL Football (for example) than to a various dramtic social changes that will effect generations to come.

598

I offically apologize for having started this.

PS Zeb and Lothario…can I be the best man when you two crazy kids finally make honest women out of each other?

599

[quote]harris447 wrote:
I offically apologize for having started this.

PS Zeb and Lothario…can I be the best man when you two crazy kids finally make honest women out of each other?[/quote]

LOL!

600

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I don’t know Zeb, the depth of this guys intellectual capacity and the logic of his arguments may be just too much for us! LOL
[/quote]

You’re right. I am too much for you. Which is why I have been excluding myself from debates(for lack of a better word) like this.

601

[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I don’t know Zeb, the depth of this guys intellectual capacity and the logic of his arguments may be just too much for us! LOL

You’re right. I am too much for you. Which is why I have been excluding myself from debates(for lack of a better word) like this.[/quote]

Wow! What an in-depth well thought out argument! You must be a MENSA member!

602

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

AIDS originated in the homosexual population. So unless there is some unknown genetic issue that makes people gay and makes them develop the HIV virus out of thin air, it would have to be the homosexual lifestyle that created the virus. In other words, it was their sexual practices that developed this issue. You know, not to be crude, but putting things where things were not designed to go. Going against function and design has consequences, and AIDS appears to be just that.

[/quote]

In a sense, you're right. It's nothing more than the fact that anal sex tends to be quite violent and much better conduit than normal sex. In fact, protected anal sex is as dangerous as unprotected normal sex when it comes to AIDS and other STDs. Something for you guys who like to do it with your girlfriends and hookups to think about (I've personally never been a fan).

In fact, it’s one of the reasons why abstinence is a notoriously poor method of protection. (besides the fact that most who initially pledge abstinence will end up having sex before marriage). Studies show that those who profess abstinence are MORE likely to have unprotected anal and oral sex than those engaging in protected genital sex.

As far as origins go, diseases spring up all the time, and it’s unclear how they first began. Unless you’re stupid enough to believe that God punished the gay population with AIDS. In which case, why did he extend it to heterosexuals? So, in that sense you are wrong. Anal sex helped spread HIV. There is nothing about anal sex that can CAUSE it.

603

[quote]ZEB wrote:
We have seen that there is no reason to sanction gay marraige in this country.
[/quote]

'Fraid not. Since gay people are members of society, and gay marriage benefits them, then gay marriage should be sanctioned for the same reasons straight marriage should be: it benefits those getting married, and the children they may raise.

So I’m afraid you’re hallucinating about there being no reason. Or maybe you’re just not looking very hard.

As for your ‘no proof that gay people can raise kids’, forget it. There’s no proof anybody can raise kids. Turns out they mostly do it themselves with some help from their parents. And there is a tremendously good track record for gay parents.

604

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We have seen that there is no reason to sanction gay marraige in this country.

'Fraid not. Since gay people are members of society, and gay marriage benefits them, then gay marriage should be sanctioned for the same reasons straight marriage should be: it benefits those getting married, and the children they may raise. So I’m afraid you’re hallucinating about there being no reason. Or maybe you’re just not looking very hard.[/quote]

Really? Polygamists are members of society and they have the potential to raise many children. Should we then sanction Polygamy? How about adult incest? They are certainly part of society what about their rights? Your logic is stunningly wrong!
In fact you may be the one “hallucinating.”

You are now “0” for two! My point was not “can they raise them.” My point is what is the long term effect on the children. And for your information there are no long term studies relative to this matter. This has not been going on long enough to produce such a study.

Try again…

605

[quote]ZEB wrote:
We have seen that there is no reason to sanction gay marraige in this country. We began the debate on the Bible and it went from there into other areas, namely tradition, science, politics etc.

I now see that the debate is veering back to the Bible. The same old falsehoods which were thrown out early in the thread and refuted are being dusted off and thrown back in the mix.

You want to get back to the Bible…okay if you wish.

WMD wrote:

Think on this: When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 by the
Romans, it made many of the holiness and observation rules in Leviticus moot. Thus people are not condemned for not going to the Temple to make sacrifice and atonement, because there is no Temple. Also it would seem that other aspects of the holiness code are no longer applicable, like eating shellfish, wearing cloth of two different materials, shaving the hair around the temples, touching menstruating women, etc. Why is it then that homosexuals continue to be condemned by Christians? Where is the verse that says “Choose 1 from column A and 2 from column B and thou shalt be holy”? When did it become okay for all you moral absolutists to pick and choose which aspects of Biblical law to follow?

I look forward to your response.

WMD

You have gotten caught before trying to pit the Old Testament against the New Testament. It was pointed out quite clearly exactly where homosexuality has been forbidden in the New Testament.

You don’t like the answer but it’s very clear. Allow me to post them again for you:

Rom 1:26
Rom 1:31
1 Cor 6:9
Col 3:5
1 Tim 1:10
2 Tim 3:3

The above are six direct scriptual passages which speak against homosexuality! I know you don’t like them you want to twist and turn their meaning, and will try no doubt. However, that never works.

Now let me ask you a question:

where in the New Testament does the Bible promote homosexuality? If it was an accepted practice then you would think that it would be found somewhere.

Marriage is mentioned in over 60 Bible verses in the New Testament. Not one time do any of theme ever refer to a someone marrying another of the same gender. However there are many that refer to one man one woman! That in addition to the “anti-homosexual” passages listed above makes a pretty clear case aginst homosexual marriage, based upon the Bible.

All you have to do is be logical. Christ spoke of repenting from your sin. Sex outside of marriage was considered sin. Do you think that he or any of the Apostles would have promted sex between two people of the same gender? Especially in light of the fact that there was no “gay marriage?”

Your arguments for gay marriage are weak to begin with. When you bring the Bible into the argument you lose even more points.

Now, could we get back to debating homosexal marriage aside from the Bible?

If homosexuality was such a hot issue, why does Jesus never speak of it?

[/quote]

What we have seen is that you espouse and support a profound misunderstanding of scripture and pretty much every thing I have ever written.

The Bible offers no definitions of marriage, merely some examples. Some of these examples include polygamous marriage, incest, rape and the forced marriage of captive women to Hebrew soldiers.

You can’t even see modern stable gay couples; am I to be surprised you can’t see them in the Bible?

My explanations of your sin (meaning to err or go astray) regarding your misunderstanding of scripture go completely unnoticed by you. YOu are nothing if not consistent. You can post your misunderstandings all day long; they remain misunderstandings. When you can read Greek and Hebrew, get back to me. Not that it will make any difference. Your own prejudice places the scales on your eyes and you cannot see the truth.

Your reasons for being against gay marriage are weak and lame. You know nothing about gay people or homosexuality, beside what you have read on truly dubious websites, such as Focus on the Family. You assert that gay marriage will turn society on it’s head without a shred of evidence. You assert that marriage is a 5000 year old institution, as though there was no marriage prior to say the appearance of Egypt and Sumer and as though marriage has not undergone many evolutions in that time. Your understanding of social history is superficial at best.

I figure that you are not the person you claim to be. You seem weak and easily threatened by people that have never caused you any harm. Perhaps you need to study the Bible more closely, especially Matthew Chapters 6 and 7, entire.

The Bible came back into the argument because of another poster and I responded to him. You simply cannot resist interacting with me. I find your obsession with me scary and unhealthy.

Shouldn’t you be doing biblechins?

606

[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We have seen that there is no reason to sanction gay marraige in this country.

'Fraid not. Since gay people are members of society, and gay marriage benefits them, then gay marriage should be sanctioned for the same reasons straight marriage should be: it benefits those getting married, and the children they may raise. So I’m afraid you’re hallucinating about there being no reason. Or maybe you’re just not looking very hard.

Really? Polygamists are members of society and they have the potential to raise many children. Should we then sanction Polygamy? How about adult incest? They are certainly part of society what about their rights? Your logic is stunningly wrong!
In fact you may be the one “hallucinating.”

As for your ‘no proof that gay people can raise kids’, forget it. There’s no proof anybody can raise kids. Turns out they mostly do it themselves with some help from their parents. And there is a tremendously good track record for gay parents.

You are now “0” for two! My point was not “can they raise them.” My point is what is the long term effect on the children. And for your information there are no long term studies relative to this matter. This has not been going on long enough to produce such a study.

Try again…

[/quote]

Where are the long-term studies on ketchup?

607

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
fatsensei wrote:
Ahhh liberals. This is probably a poor attitude but I really hope that on judgement day when you are trying to explain to God why being a homosexual is ok that I can be there. It’ll be a hoot.

FatSensei

Well God, You make all people in your image, and some people come out gay (or become gay, if you will). I’m not saying you are gay God, but perhaps you are tolerant of gay people because afterall, you did make them.

Furthermore God, you are an all loving being. I don’t recall ever hearing that you are “A being that loves all straight people.”, but maybe that got lost in the english translation of the bible.

I don’t understand this mentality that gay people are “wrong”. I’ll concede that it is abnormal, by definition, to be gay… but I’ll never declare that its wrong. What about straight people engaging in anal sex? Do they go to hell, I mean surely you can’t bear a child that way, heathens.

Liberate your minds people, does everything need to be spoon fed to you to form your opinion?[/quote]

People make chooses, God is not a murderer, rapist, or child molester, and I bet he will not be tolerent of their actions either.

608

[quote]BRD421 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
fatsensei wrote:
Ahhh liberals. This is probably a poor attitude but I really hope that on judgement day when you are trying to explain to God why being a homosexual is ok that I can be there. It’ll be a hoot.

FatSensei

Well God, You make all people in your image, and some people come out gay (or become gay, if you will). I’m not saying you are gay God, but perhaps you are tolerant of gay people because afterall, you did make them.

Furthermore God, you are an all loving being. I don’t recall ever hearing that you are “A being that loves all straight people.”, but maybe that got lost in the english translation of the bible.

I don’t understand this mentality that gay people are “wrong”. I’ll concede that it is abnormal, by definition, to be gay… but I’ll never declare that its wrong. What about straight people engaging in anal sex? Do they go to hell, I mean surely you can’t bear a child that way, heathens.

Liberate your minds people, does everything need to be spoon fed to you to form your opinion?

People make chooses, God is not a murderer, rapist, or child molester, and I bet he will not be tolerent of their actions either.

[/quote]

First of all, people make “choices”.

Second of all, what’s your point?