The Religious Case for Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]forlife wrote:
You originally said:

Infertile, or not, it is still one more committed couple consisting of the smallest unit (pay attention) biologically…anatomically…designed…built…capable…of producing and raising it’s own offspring. 1 male, 1 female. A model for society…

This model excludes infertile couples because THEY AREN’T CABABLE OF REPRODUCING.

When I pointed this out, you changed your tune:

I’m setting straight couples as the model.

Make up your fucking mind.

[/quote]

“1 male, 1 female. A model for society…”

It’s right there in that quote…Omg. You should be ashamed of yourself. Again, you will cut the crap, before I answer further questions.

142

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Like I said it’s rare. If you’re down to one hetero male actually being able to have sex with another man then we agree.

By the way based upon your assumptions even ONE case of a homosexual becoming straight is proves that the specific behavior CAN be changed.[/quote]

Of course specific behavior can be changed, whether you are gay or straight.

That was never the point, since we were talking about sexual orientation.

Or are you going to argue that your straight prisoner becomes flaming gay by virtue of having sex with another inmate?

145

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
I am not sure why you would want to get married again anyway. Did you not already betray the trust of one partner and family? Why put yourself in a position to do it again?

I never cheated on my wife, and our decision to divorce was mutual.

Now fuck off.

No…you just left her…and your children… to have gay sex.

Your family must be so proud of you.[/quote]

Let us not get personal

147

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
belligerent wrote:
That article is fucking retarded. There is no Biblical case for gay marriage. Either you accept it on secular grounds or you oppose it on religious grounds. Liberal Christianity is intellectual diarrhea.

Religion is intellectual diarrhea. It has no place in politics or science. But people seem to forget that.

Homosexual marriage has no place in society. But…the left seems to forget that.[/quote]

Stop calling it marriage, homosexuality in general would have sufficed.

148

Forlife, you just don’t get it. I have continually opened the door to you for dialog on this issue, even acknowledge some of your points may have merit. But you, continue to attack my religion.

I know why you do it, because if you can discredit our religion, in your mind you will not be held accountable for the knowledge you have obtained. The sad thing is you and I both know, you cannot deny that knowledge. Therefore you will continue to have this personal struggle within yourself trying to justify the life you have CHOSEN.

You may call it a fairy tale, but I believe many gospel truths have been clarified within the pages of the Book of Mormon. It does not replace the Bible, and when used together makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ plain and clear.

Again, when you start to respect religion, then we can have a professional dialog pertaining to your CHOICE of lifestyle.

Makavali:

Not wrong, check it out.

I appreciate what you say about the Gay Community not speaking for all gays.

Just like Religious Zealots do not speak for the religious community. No one group or person can speak for everyone. But where does it stop? Everyone wants their rights. When do the rights of one become more important than the rights of another?

I think over the last two hundred years our country has done a remarkable job of preserving the rights of the whole.

In my opinion, I say give gays all the rights they want. Just don’t call it marriage. Call it a civil union and give them every right they are requesting. Just don’t call it Marriage. It may be childish of me to argue over a word. But, it is a word that means a lot to me. And, I will vote every-time it comes up to maintain marriage between a man and a woman, and there are a lot in this country who will do the same.

There are also a lot who will tell gays one thing to their face and then turn around when they think no one will know and then vote yes on 8. At least you know where I’m coming from. I’m not going to lie to you.

149

[quote]forlife wrote:

You conveniently forgot to quote your non sequitur that while gay marriage doesn’t threaten straight marriage where existing children are concerned, it does threaten straight marriage where future children are concerned.

I was referring to your non sequitur, genius. You failed to show that gay marriage decreases the number of children that would be raised by their biological parents in the future, and I called you on it. Then you pulled your disappearing act.[/quote]

For fun, let’s count the errors:

  1. It isn’t a non-sequitur, because the points are independent of, not dependent on one another, but let me guess - you are planning on misusing and abusing that term as much as you have “red herring” and “straw man”?

Here is a tip, Forlife - ask for your money back on your “PhD!”. You have been failed miserably.

  1. Since I wasn’t trying to show that gay marriage produced a decrease in the number of children being raised by their parents, I couldn’t have failed at it. I showed that gay marriage - and alternative marriages generally - don’t decrease the number of children not being raised by their parents, Einstein.

We want to decrease the number of children outside of being raised by their biological parents - gay marriage stands in the way of that by setting a “perfectly acceptable substitute”.

  1. And the argument was made just fine, more times than you deserved. Here is one in carnation of it, about halfway down:

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/gay_marriage_down_in_flames?id=2598474&pageNo=40

  1. You mentioned the “infertility” argument, PRCalDude replied how it was refuted, and you conveniently ignored it, all the while menstruating about how Thunderbolt “dodges this, and dodges that, and disappears, and [other assorted whinery]”.

Your argument about infertile couples being granted marriage was “proof” that marriage couldn’t really be about children was whitesmoked - but you conveniently flushed it and when on to other things. So was the refutation of your plainly stupid notion that gay marriage would prevent homosexuals from engaging in irreponsible sexual behavior that could result in their death.

The point is - no one particularly cares but for the fact that it is you that keeps bleating on and on and on and on that Thunderbolt (and others) “dodge” the points.

  1. Aren’t we still waiting on an explanation as why you married your wife? You say that “hardcore homosexuals” don’t have that level of intimacy with members of the opposite sex - only pure, physical sex - but you married and had a child with a woman.

Either you disprove your own theory about “hardcore homosexuals”, or you based your marriage and family on nothing but a series of trysts. Shameful.

Let’s cut to the quick, Forlife - you are an amateur and a hack. You came into the PWI forum expecting to be a lion on the issue, only to get humiliated as a lamb.

The very moment you ran into someone who had put some thought into the issue and provided a counterargument you were unprepared for, you resorted to bad faith, name-calling, and downright dishonesty. And the trend continues. And it has gotten dull.

150

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Especially when only one partner is infertile. That would remove at least one person from the breeding pool and run contrary to the supposed goals of marriage.[/quote]

Nope, Sloth is right on - the union of one man and one woman is the model, i.e., the rule we aim for. That some couples in this model are infertile doesn’t suggest the model is bad or faulty - in fact, it doesn’t really say anything at all about the model.

Btw, haven’t heard from you on all that wondrous “the US was never meant to be RELIGIOUS at all” stuff - odd that.

151

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Especially when only one partner is infertile. That would remove at least one person from the breeding pool and run contrary to the supposed goals of marriage.

Nope, Sloth is right on - the union of one man and one woman is the model, i.e., the rule we aim for. That some couples in this model are infertile doesn’t suggest the model is bad or faulty - in fact, it doesn’t really say anything at all about the model.

Btw, haven’t heard from you on all that wondrous “the US was never meant to be RELIGIOUS at all” stuff - odd that.

[/quote]

not to mention the infertile couple is perfect for adopting children. People who will adopt children without raising that childs chance of having sex with a parent three fold.

152

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Especially when only one partner is infertile. That would remove at least one person from the breeding pool and run contrary to the supposed goals of marriage.

Nope, Sloth is right on - the union of one man and one woman is the model, i.e., the rule we aim for. That some couples in this model are infertile doesn’t suggest the model is bad or faulty - in fact, it doesn’t really say anything at all about the model.

Btw, haven’t heard from you on all that wondrous “the US was never meant to be RELIGIOUS at all” stuff - odd that.

[/quote]

Go back a few pages.

153

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
not to mention the infertile couple is perfect for adopting children. People who will adopt children without raising that childs chance of having sex with a parent three fold.[/quote]

So gay people can’t adopt and will most definitely abuse their kids.

Got it.

154

[quote]Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
not to mention the infertile couple is perfect for adopting children. People who will adopt children without raising that childs chance of having sex with a parent three fold.

So gay people can’t adopt and will most definitely abuse their kids.

Got it.[/quote]

Homosexuals would probably raise some pretty screwed up kids…

you see, we are trying to contain the problem.

155

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Your family must be so proud of you.[/quote]

For a moment there, I thought you might be capable of having a real discussion. I guess you never fail to disappoint, welcome back to the troll list.

156

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The Bible is absolute. Prerequisite to acceptance of the content is the belief that it (the Bible) is the infalliable word of God. If you accept any part of it, you must acknowledge its infalliability, and so then you must accept all of it. If you deny any part of it, then you deny its infalliability, and so there is no reason to believe anything else written therein. There is no room for ridiculous alternative interpretations in relation to modern times.

Liberal Christians are simply not Christians at all; instead, they are new age secularists who cling to the idea of an afterlife.[/quote]

If you really believed that you might have a point. However, I’m pretty sure you don’t agree with the commandments in the bible not to divorce, that women should not speak in church or have their heads covered, that slaves should obey their masters, etc. By your logic, none of the rest of the bible can be true either.

Liberal Christians recognize the bible has cultural influences which reflect the thinking of a tribe of people thousands of years ago. It is possible to recognize the fundamental goodness of biblical principles, while applying those principles to today’s culture and society.

I happen to think the bible, the qu’ran, and other holy books are man’s attempt to make meaning of the universe and don’t have any divine influence whatsoever, but that is just me.

157

Every culture, every religion, defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and for the purpose of having children.

Marriage is NOT so that gays can express their love for each other. Legal union, so you can visit in the hospital or inherit…fine. But quit trying to despoil a sacred institution.

All you’re doing is creating one giant backlash. You’re going to lose the rights you DO have and be relegated to abandoned warehouses and behind dumpsters, if your gang keeps this up.

158

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
I know why you do it, because if you can discredit our religion, in your mind you will not be held accountable for the knowledge you have obtained. The sad thing is you and I both know, you cannot deny that knowledge. Therefore you will continue to have this personal struggle within yourself trying to justify the life you have CHOSEN.[/quote]

I understand why you believe that, and don’t blame you for it. I would have said exactly the same thing a decade ago.

How deep have you gone down the rabbit’s hole, really? As a missionary, I had canned responses to all the criticisms, but I never truly considered the possibility that Joseph Smith and his friends made the Book of Mormon up.

I would be completely fine with that, and appreciate your support. There are a lot of Mormons who would not be so open minded, because they believe granting gays equal rights is tantamount to sanctioning homosexual behavior.
[/quote]

159

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Since I wasn’t trying to show that gay marriage produced a decrease in the number of children being raised by their parents, I couldn’t have failed at it.[/quote]

Then don’t whine about gay marriage being a threat to straight marriage, since you know very well it has no effect on the number of children not raised by their biological parents.

So you’re now opposing gay marriage because it doesn’t offer what you see as the primary benefit of marriage. That is different from claiming gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage, and you know it.

We’ve established that gay marriage in no way interferes with your self-acclaimed primary goal of marriage. There is no downside to it.

The logical follow up is this:

Does gay marriage provide other benefits to the couple, their children, and society which would be worth promoting?

The answer to this question is a resounding yes, supported by the research of the medical and mental health organizations.

It doesn’t take a genius to do the math:

Gay marriage has no negatives, and it provides a number of positives, so it should be supported.

That is, unless you have some other reason for opposing gay marriage…like your religious beliefs, or that the idea of two men or women getting it on makes you feel icky.

160

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nope, Sloth is right on - the union of one man and one woman is the model, i.e., the rule we aim for. That some couples in this model are infertile doesn’t suggest the model is bad or faulty - in fact, it doesn’t really say anything at all about the model.
[/quote]

But you just said:

Please explain how infertile couples DECREASE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOT BEING RAISED BY THEIR PARENTS.

By your own definition, they fail to meet the primary purpose of marriage.

Oops.