[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Hey forlife is that your photo?
You look like a very pissed off gay man flexing.
[/quote]
I was thinking about rainbows and butterflies at the time.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If there is a “right” to marry whom you love, then you can’t prohibit, polygamy or incest either.
Your God specifically sanctioned polygamy and incest in your own holy book.
Not that I agree with him, but it’s your holy book not mine.[/quote]
So you agree they should be legal?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes I can choose to be a Muslim, and I could choose to be gay. However, making either of those choices doesn’t get me out of obeying the universal legal standard. Even if I choose Islam marrying a cousin is still prohibited (most places), even if I’m gay same sex marriage is still prohibited.[/quote]
I never said otherwise.
What I said was that the federal government protects CHOICE, not just GENETIC FACTORS.
So your argument that gays aren’t entitled to equal civil rights unless homosexuality is proven to be 100% genetic doesn’t hold water.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes I can choose to be a Muslim, and I could choose to be gay. However, making either of those choices doesn’t get me out of obeying the universal legal standard. Even if I choose Islam marrying a cousin is still prohibited (most places), even if I’m gay same sex marriage is still prohibited.
I never said otherwise.
What I said was that the federal government protects CHOICE, not just GENETIC FACTORS.
So your argument that gays aren’t entitled to equal civil rights unless homosexuality is proven to be 100% genetic doesn’t hold water.[/quote]
I never said that. What I said is that no differentiation is made legally whether or not you are gay so it isn’t about civil rights.
In order to legally make that distinction (other than making people declare themselves one way or the other) would be a provable genetic condition.
The government protects choice as long as those choices are legal.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
I understand that you would like the world to believe that being gay is a genetic problem. I just know too many gays who were gay today and not tomorrow. They switch their gayness more than the weather.[[/quote]
I couldn’t care less whether or not sexual orientation has a genetic component. Equal civil rights don’t require it.
That said, the scientific evidence and my own experience suggest that there is a genetic component.
People might have argued that being married to a woman was “switching my gayness”, but they only saw the surface and had no idea of the complexities and pain associated with being in a mixed orientation marriage, both to myself and my wife.
It’s a relevant issue, because fundies oppose gay marriage in the name of preserving “traditional marriage”, while hypocritically denying that their own holy book sanctions polygamy and other forms of marriage that don’t fall into what they now claim is a 5,000 year old unchanging institution.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The old testament contains a mixture of permitted non-christian practices, practices moved closer to the Christian ideal (only an eye for any eye, instead of blood feuds wiping out families), and solid commandments.
I’m pretty sure that when God directly tells people to marry more than one woman, that counts as a “solid commandment” rather than a “permitted non-christian practice”.
[/quote]
You have to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people I’ve ever met on a forum. I have explained the differences in the allowances of the old law, and the fullness of the new with Christ. While it may vary in degrees, this is a basic tenent of most Christian denominations. If you want to argue against a religion that doesn’t include this, go for it. But it would no longer be Christianity with which you argue. However, feel free to provide Christ’s words condoning more than two people, a man and wife, becoming one flesh through marriage.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I’ll admit to it. As long as you’ll admit that it remains heterosexual.[/quote]
Heterosexual within the Christian tradition yes, but not one man and one woman like the fundies claim.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
I’ll admit to it. As long as you’ll admit that it remains heterosexual.
Heterosexual within the Christian tradition yes, but not one man and one woman like the fundies claim.
[/quote]
False. I’ve provided Christ’s words. A man. A wife. Two become one. I quoted this and I know you had to have read it. You are now lying your way through a debate you desperately need to win.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Seriously, besides some absolute and utter crackpot of a doctor, provide me with ONE source of evidence for that.[/quote]
[b]In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski and his colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the first-ever study combining the entire human genome for genetic determinants of sexual orientation, identified several stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes.
The bottom line, according to Mustanski, is that ?genes play an important role? in determining whether or not men are gay or straight.[/b]
I could provide dozens of other studies, but that will suffice.
On sexual orientation being a choice, every major medical and mental health organization has conducted research over the past 20 years and unanimously concluded that it is not a choice.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If there is a “right” to marry whom you love, then you can’t prohibit, polygamy or incest either.
Your God specifically sanctioned polygamy and incest in your own holy book.
Not that I agree with him, but it’s your holy book not mine.
So you agree they should be legal?[/quote]
Bolded above for your reading pleasure.
[quote]forlife wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Seriously, besides some absolute and utter crackpot of a doctor, provide me with ONE source of evidence for that.
In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski and his colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the first-ever study combining the entire human genome for genetic determinants of sexual orientation, identified several stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes. The bottom line, according to Mustanski, is that ?genes play an important role? in determining whether or not men are gay or straight.
I could provide dozens of other studies, but that will suffice.
On sexual orientation being a choice, every major medical and mental health organization has conducted research over the past 20 years and unanimously concluded that it is not a choice.[/quote]
So being a pedophile isn’t a choice?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If there is a “right” to marry whom you love, then you can’t prohibit, polygamy or incest either.
Your God specifically sanctioned polygamy and incest in your own holy book.
Not that I agree with him, but it’s your holy book not mine.
So you agree they should be legal?
Bolded above for your reading pleasure.[/quote]
So you agree that it is legal for the government to morally regulate marriage and that it doesn’t infringe on people’s rights, even if it denies them the ability to marry the one they love?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The government protects choice as long as those choices are legal.[/quote]
Umm, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. The point is that you don’t need to prove a genetic factor to justify legal protection.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The government protects choice as long as those choices are legal.
Umm, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. The point is that you don’t need to prove a genetic factor to justify legal protection.[/quote]
See previous post.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You have to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people I’ve ever met on a forum. I have explained the differences in the allowances of the old law, and the fullness of the new with Christ. While it may vary in degrees, this is a basic tenent of most Christian denominations. If you want to argue against a religion that doesn’t include this, go for it. But it would no longer be Christianity with which you argue. However, feel free to provide Christ’s words condoning more than two people, a man and wife, becoming one flesh through marriage. [/quote]
You have a lot of fucking nerve calling me intellectually dishonest when it is YOUR HOLY BOOK that specifically condones the practices you now oppose.
Twist it however you want, the fact is that God commanded people in the old testament to practice polygamy. I didn’t say Christ condoned polygamy, I said that God condoned it in the old testament.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
False. I’ve provided Christ’s words. A man. A wife. Two become one. I quoted this and I know you had to have read it. You are now lying your way through a debate you desperately need to win.[/quote]
Most Christians consider the old testament part of their holy book, and that God’s words are actually recorded there.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So being a pedophile isn’t a choice?[/quote]
Do you understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So you agree that it is legal for the government to morally regulate marriage and that it doesn’t infringe on people’s rights, even if it denies them the ability to marry the one they love?[/quote]
You’re dodging the point, which is that your God sanctioned it in the old testament.
To answer your question though, I think the government has no right to deny marriage to people that love each other, so long as they are consenting adults and there is no inherent damage to the relationship.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You have to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people I’ve ever met on a forum. I have explained the differences in the allowances of the old law, and the fullness of the new with Christ. While it may vary in degrees, this is a basic tenent of most Christian denominations. If you want to argue against a religion that doesn’t include this, go for it. But it would no longer be Christianity with which you argue. However, feel free to provide Christ’s words condoning more than two people, a man and wife, becoming one flesh through marriage.
You have a lot of fucking nerve calling me intellectually dishonest when it is YOUR HOLY BOOK that specifically condones the practices you now oppose.
Twist it however you want, the fact is that God commanded people in the old testament to practice polygamy. I didn’t say Christ condoned polygamy, I said that God condoned it in the old testament.
[/quote]
As an allowance! The design, the plan, was the model of Adam and Eve, as seen in Gen. 2. Not Adam, Eve, and Barbara. Polygamy and divorce were concessions to peoples, tribes, customs, and cultures already in place. Christ himself made it absolutely clear what the plan was for marriage. And well, that’s sort of important. If you argue any other way, you aren’t arguing against Christianity.
Though I’m sure Polygamist everywhere thank you for arguing why they should recieve marriage benefits.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So you agree that it is legal for the government to morally regulate marriage and that it doesn’t infringe on people’s rights, even if it denies them the ability to marry the one they love?
You’re dodging the point, which is that your God sanctioned it in the old testament.
To answer your question though, I think the government has no right to deny marriage to people that love each other, so long as they are consenting adults and there is no inherent damage to the relationship.[/quote]
And people try to tell us a slippery slope arguement shouldn’t be made.