Well since we're playing the "biblical passage" game.
Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
You really need to tone it down with all the bible passages friend.
Anyways, if there's a God that created gay people than says they can't act the way he made them, then that's not the God I worship, if anything that's a God of intolerance.
The only thing that I believe God doesn't have a hand in is whether a person has a mental or physical disorder or not, and unless you start claiming Homosexuality is a "disorder" I see no reason to force homosexuals, some of whom aren't even christian, into not being married because of vaguely biblical reasons. America is a land for the free practice of faith for all religions, forcing a certain group to adhere to christian beliefs is just plain intolerance.
Hi. Mr logic, I need to you to understand something. Most of us? We don't believe in god. We equate the bible in terms of accuracy less with the latest edition of "Nature" and more with the latest edition of "Spiderman". Most of the rest of us here are smart enough to recognize this, and accept that unless we've assumed "the bible is correct" as a premise for an argument for the sake of argument[1], the bible is not a valid source in this discussion. Citing bible verses at us is like citing verses of the Qur'an or Bhagavad Gita - we don't care what's in that book!
[1] i.e. saying something like "Well, even if we DO accept the bible, X isn't in there"
Luke 16: 27-31 27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 30 "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
If what I give you now isn't enough then nothing ever will be, even if I found tons of hystorical proof of the events of the bible happening.
Well that's just nonsense. I've had plenty of people telling me about Jesus and God and Allah and so forth, and I haven't believed. But if my Gran popped out of her urn and said to me "Hey, turns out God is real after all, and he sent me back to let you know that!"...well, I'd definitely be a lot more convinced.
As for you talking about historical evidence for the events described in the Bible, I'm given to understand that there is supporting evidence for at least some of the more mundane events. Just no other evidence for the miracles, or for the existence of God, or that Jesus was anything more than a mortal man. And that's a problem, because it's those things you're trying to convince us of.
I remember an interesting analogy I read on here a while back: In several comic books real-life figures such as Obama or Bush have appeared. As have real-life locations. But just because New York City and President Obama are demonstrably real, it doesn't mean that Spiderman exists.
Well since we're playing the "biblical passage" game.
Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
You really need to tone it down with all the bible passages friend.
Anyways, if there's a God that created gay people than says they can't act the way he made them, then that's not the God I worship, if anything that's a God of intolerance.
The only thing that I believe God doesn't have a hand in is whether a person has a mental or physical disorder or not, and unless you start claiming Homosexuality is a "disorder" I see no reason to force homosexuals, some of whom aren't even christian, into not being married because of vaguely biblical reasons. America is a land for the free practice of faith for all religions, forcing a certain group to adhere to christian beliefs is just plain intolerance.
was that verse a jab at me?
anywho Everyone has sin it isn't just certain people.
Not everyone who has ever lived has killed someone though just like not everyone is a homosexual. Regardless of their sexual desire if they desire salvation more then they need to reject it(even straight sexual attraction can be sinful if you can't control yourself.) If they decide to deny God then they can deal with the consequences.
Intolerance. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything just telling them whats going on, and giving them a heads up. The least loving thing I could do is be silent. The most loving thing I could do is lay down my life for them, but since I don't have that opportunity at the moment I'm simply going to speak.
Hi, can you rationalize your position without the bibleverses?
No, no he can't.
Then he will have a hard time saying anything.
Because most people don't share his set of values.
Even if we agreed for the sake of argument that all christians agree with his values, that still leaves him with ~5 billion people on the planet that just don't care.
As someone that is supposed to spread the wisdom of christ and save our gay souls from damnation, he isn't trying hard enough to get his values across. I think even God would agree with my assessment that hes doing a really shitty job.
Luke 16: 27-31 27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 30 "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
If what I give you now isn't enough then nothing ever will be, even if I found tons of hystorical proof of the events of the bible happening.
Well that's just nonsense. I've had plenty of people telling me about Jesus and God and Allah and so forth, and I haven't believed. But if my Gran popped out of her urn and said to me "Hey, turns out God is real after all, and he sent me back to let you know that!"...well, I'd definitely be a lot more convinced.
As for you talking about historical evidence for the events described in the Bible, I'm given to understand that there is supporting evidence for at least some of the more mundane events. Just no other evidence for the miracles, or for the existence of God, or that Jesus was anything more than a mortal man. And that's a problem, because it's those things you're trying to convince us of.
I remember an interesting analogy I read on here a while back: In several comic books real-life figures such as Obama or Bush have appeared. As have real-life locations. But just because New York City and President Obama are demonstrably real, it doesn't mean that Spiderman exists.
hmmm consider that in the revelation it is said that during the plagues in which people know that God is sending them they still don't stop sinning or ask for forgivness. They decide to deny him to death for no real reason.
If a woman came back and claimed to be your grandmother you wouldn't beileve it. Things like that can be explained away. Chris angel/hollywood special effects/drugs/a good actor/ ect ect ect. If you've been given the knowledge of salvation, and choose to deny it now. What else is left?
Besides it isn't love if you aren't risking something or sacrificing something. If their was 100% perfect proof of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit exsiting, and heaven and hell where still there. Everyone and their dog would pick God because Hell is infinite Horror, and heaven is infinite joy.
We are sanctified through faith not proof. it's the same dynamic in a trust fall. It isn't a trust fall if your looking at them and can catch yourself. You need to let it all go and trust them.
1 Peter 1:3-9 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7 These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith-of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire -may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
Hi, can you rationalize your position without the bibleverses?
No, no he can't.
Then he will have a hard time saying anything.
Because most people don't share his set of values.
Even if we agreed for the sake of argument that all christians agree with his values, that still leaves him with ~5 billion people on the planet that just don't care.
As someone that is supposed to spread the wisdom of christ and save our gay souls from damnation, he isn't trying hard enough to get his values across. I think even God would agree with my assessment that hes doing a really shitty job.
Well, he's not curing disease by touch. ISTR Jesus said that was something His followers should go and do likewise. It'd be a better start than slinging Bible quotes.
Because most people don't share his set of values.
Even if we agreed for the sake of argument that all christians agree with his values, that still leaves him with ~5 billion people on the planet that just don't care.
As someone that is supposed to spread the wisdom of christ and save our gay souls from damnation, he isn't trying hard enough to get his values across. I think even God would agree with my assessment that hes doing a really shitty job.
Well, he's not curing disease by touch. ISTR Jesus said that was something His followers should go and do likewise. It'd be a better start than slinging Bible quotes.
I'm not even trying to be sarcastic here. I actually think he is doing it wrong.
If you want to walk the walk and talk the talk about saving my soul (and i should be concerned about it if its true), shooting bible-verses at me will have no effect if i dont share the belief-system or value-system.
First you have to convince me why i should care about your value-system and why its good/better than what i have now.
"To whom it may concern, you are going to hell." Isn't exactly saving my soul if i dont know/care what hell is or sin and why i should be concerned or persuaded.
I understand he thinks its all self-evident but its unfortunately not.
Mostly just a jab at the constant use of biblical passages.
Mr.logic: anywho Everyone has sin it isn't just certain people.
Not everyone who has ever lived has killed someone though just like not everyone is a homosexual. Regardless of their sexual desire if they desire salvation more then they need to reject it(even straight sexual attraction can be sinful if you can't control yourself.) If they decide to deny God then they can deal with the consequences.
Thing is, they aren't denying God. They can be genuinely christian, when they take a partner, they aren't saying "take that God!", they're committing an act of love.
Mr.logic: Intolerance. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything just telling them whats going on, and giving them a heads up. The least loving thing I could do is be silent. The most loving thing I could do is lay down my life for them, but since I don't have that opportunity at the moment I'm simply going to speak.
Loving by saying they can't get married?
Listen, I just have one thing to ask you, this is the only thing that I want you to truly respond to. What makes homosexuality and Homosexual acts sinful?
Murder is taking another child of god's life, it is clear why that's another sin. Theft is taking another's possessions which could harm them financially and possibly even ruin their future, it's clear why that's a sin. Lust and adultery is breaking the sacred bonds of love and giving in to purely physical pleasures, it's clear why that's a sin.
Yet, what is supposed to make homosexuality sinful? They can love their partners as much as any man loves a woman, they can be faithful to them and not cheat on them with any other.
I feel a certain speech from Shakespeare's the merchant of venice would fit this perfectly.
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."
Just replace the word "Jew" with "Homosexual" and you get, essentially, the same thing. Homosexuals are like us in virtually every way, the only difference is they like someone of the same gender. Why is that inherently sinful in any way? Please, give a deeper meaning than just "Well the bible says it is".
As long as the arguments against homosexual marriage boil down to "the Bible says so" or "sanctity of marriage!" then we can't have any kind of debate here. Those arguements are the arguements of a fool, of a small-minded, petty person who does not like things that are different.
The disgusting level of hypocricy shown by Christians when it comes to sin is so insane, so monumentally off the rails, that any debate with them becomes impossible. I have nothing but disdain for people who opress a minority without even being able to come up with a good reason.
Bassik: As long as the arguments against homosexual marriage boil down to "the Bible says so" or "sanctity of marriage!" then we can't have any kind of debate here. Those arguements are the arguements of a fool, of a small-minded, petty person who does not like things that are different.
The disgusting level of hypocricy shown by Christians when it comes to sin is so insane, so monumentally off the rails, that any debate with them becomes impossible. I have nothing but disdain for people who opress a minority without even being able to come up with a good reason.
Debating with someone who makes up stuff as they go along is like trying to play a board game with someone who makes up new rules whenever it suits them.
Unrelated to this discussion, but this post right here shows just how bad these forums are:
"A remarkable thing happened at my store today, and I wanted to share it with fellow conservatives:
A young man (maybe early 20's) tried to purchase bread and ham at my store with, guess what, FOOD STAMPS! I told him that I don't follow the trend of the SLIMY LIBERALS and I don't accept FOOD STAMPS in my store. While he was leaving, a regular customer of mine named Tom saw the young man who tried to use stamps. Tom scolded the young man for having food stamps. When the young man said that it wasn't anybody's business, Tom told him that it was everyones's business since taxpayers are paying for food stamps. The young man tried to run away but Tom punched him right square in the face... broke the kid's nose and knocked out a tooth.
You're damned right I didn't call the police, unless if it were to report the young guy STEALING FROM AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.
I was so proud of Tom, I bought him a beer when I closed shop"
Yep, that sounds just like what Jesus would have done.
Mostly just a jab at the constant use of biblical passages.
Mr.logic: anywho Everyone has sin it isn't just certain people.
Not everyone who has ever lived has killed someone though just like not everyone is a homosexual. Regardless of their sexual desire if they desire salvation more then they need to reject it(even straight sexual attraction can be sinful if you can't control yourself.) If they decide to deny God then they can deal with the consequences.
Thing is, they aren't denying God. They can be genuinely christian, when they take a partner, they aren't saying "take that God!", they're committing an act of love.
Mr.logic: Intolerance. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything just telling them whats going on, and giving them a heads up. The least loving thing I could do is be silent. The most loving thing I could do is lay down my life for them, but since I don't have that opportunity at the moment I'm simply going to speak.
Loving by saying they can't get married?
Listen, I just have one thing to ask you, this is the only thing that I want you to truly respond to. What makes homosexuality and Homosexual acts sinful?
Murder is taking another child of god's life, it is clear why that's another sin. Theft is taking another's possessions which could harm them financially and possibly even ruin their future, it's clear why that's a sin. Lust and adultery is breaking the sacred bonds of love and giving in to purely physical pleasures, it's clear why that's a sin.
Yet, what is supposed to make homosexuality sinful? They can love their partners as much as any man loves a woman, they can be faithful to them and not cheat on them with any other.
I feel a certain speech from Shakespeare's the merchant of venice would fit this perfectly.
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."
Just replace the word "Jew" with "Homosexual" and you get, essentially, the same thing. Homosexuals are like us in virtually every way, the only difference is they like someone of the same gender. Why is that inherently sinful in any way? Please, give a deeper meaning than just "Well the bible says it is".
That passage is about acting or doing "holy" things in public to impress people rather than being holy to honor God. Doesn't really have anything to do with quoting passages.
They may not be saying take that God! They are however denying his words. Saying that even though God said this sin is just as worthy of hell as the rest I still want it, and I'm going to do it regardless of what God says. It also isn't very loving to draw someone into sin.
Homosexuality is sinful Because:
God didn't make us that way.
God said it's a sin.
God knows everything I do not, so I will trust him on this.
unrestrained sexual desires in any form can be devastating.
Sin that you live in is habitual sin, which makes it impossible to be close to God or draw on any of the many blessings he promises.
But God did not say it was a sin, it was claimed to be an abomination. That's about it.
And if Homosexuals are allowed to marry, it will not be unrestrained, they will be restrained by their spouses as much as a straight couple is.
Your only argument is "God didn't make us that way", yet homosexuals have existed since the dawn of time. God claims to love each and every person equally, yet, for whatever reason, he is disgusted by a certain group of people, born a certain way? No, that isn't a loving God, a god that's a God of intolerance and bigotry, plain and simple.
Homosexuality is perfectly natural and clean. Tell me, can you honestly keep yourself from falling in love with a woman? Can you honestly say you would be fine with any law banning you from marrying a person you love and care about.
There is nothing tolerant about saying "Thou shalt not love" there is nothing "loving" about saying you will be persecuted for the way you were born.
Habitual sins referring to leading a sinful life, yet if a person donates money to charity and cares for the poor, would they really be living a sinful life by loving another person of the same gender with all their heart and soul? However, habitual sins can also refer to sexual relations outside or before marriage... Which only means Homosexuals should be allowed to marry rather than be forced into sin.
Obsideo: Unrelated to this discussion, but this post right here shows just how bad these forums are:
"A remarkable thing happened at my store today, and I wanted to share it with fellow conservatives:
A young man (maybe early 20's) tried to purchase bread and ham at my store with, guess what, FOOD STAMPS! I told him that I don't follow the trend of the SLIMY LIBERALS and I don't accept FOOD STAMPS in my store. While he was leaving, a regular customer of mine named Tom saw the young man who tried to use stamps. Tom scolded the young man for having food stamps. When the young man said that it wasn't anybody's business, Tom told him that it was everyones's business since taxpayers are paying for food stamps. The young man tried to run away but Tom punched him right square in the face... broke the kid's nose and knocked out a tooth.
You're damned right I didn't call the police, unless if it were to report the young guy STEALING FROM AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.
I was so proud of Tom, I bought him a beer when I closed shop"
Yep, that sounds just like what Jesus would have done.
....I roll to disbelieve. That entire forum HAS to be trolls trolling each other.
Mr.logic: hmmm consider that in the revelation it is said that during the plagues in which people know that God is sending them they still don't stop sinning or ask for forgivness. They decide to deny him to death for no real reason.
And you believe that? No, seriously, you actually believe that?
If a woman came back and claimed to be your grandmother you wouldn't beileve it. Things like that can be explained away. Chris angel/hollywood special effects/drugs/a good actor/ ect ect ect. If you've been given the knowledge of salvation, and choose to deny it now. What else is left?
Knowledge? Deny? Some crazy guy on the forum told me a book is the inspired divine word of some otherworldly deity. It's like if the Mormons started going door-to-door.
Besides it isn't love if you aren't risking something or sacrificing something. If their was 100% perfect proof of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit exsiting, and heaven and hell where still there. Everyone and their dog would pick God because Hell is infinite Horror, and heaven is infinite joy.
Except that in the bible, we have three cases of exactly this not happening. The first is in the garden of eden, where god reveals himself to Adam and Eve, gives them a command, and they break it. The second is the story of Jonah, where Jonah is confronted by god and given a mission, and decides to basically flip god the bird. The third is that bit in revelations that you yourself brought up! Not getting any cognitive dissonance here, are we?
it's the same dynamic in a trust fall. It isn't a trust fall if your looking at them and can catch yourself. You need to let it all go and trust them.
Okay. Now imagine that this trust fall is on the edge of a cliff. Then imagine that the people who are supposed to catch you are invisible and intangible.
1 Peter 1:3-9 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7 These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith-of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire -may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
What part of "We don't give a shit" is so hard to understand?
Cakes: Any number of perversions will be able to fight for societal acceptance based on the exact same logic as the LGBT rights movement. After all, incest, bestiality, necrophilia and cannibalism don't REALLY hurt anyone. I can easily see a future in which I'm called a bigot because I find incest vile and will not allow it near my family. It's a bad sign of where society is going. </devils_advocate>
And those are legitimate concerns for the effects of the LGBT movement, just as they were legitimate concerns for the effects of interracial marriages. [/sarcasm]
Those are totally different situations which are illegal for totally different reasons. If there does come a time when society is willing to get passed the initial "ew, gross" factors to discuss them objectively as we today wish to objectively discuss homosexual marriage, then so be it. But, there are a lot of objective problems involved in those which would have to be taken into account, making them just as bullshit as any other slippery slope argument (the lack of consent from animals and their inability to enter into a contract, the astronomically higher rate of severe birth defects in children born of incestuousness relationships, whether or not you should consider a dead body an independent object which can be totally owned by any other person or treat it as though the person who previously owned it still has rights, etc).
Give me one objective reason gay marriage could be a bad idea and I might consider saying they are comparable to those other situations. Until then, just...stop.
You can't give me one objective reason why harmless bestiality should be illegal. Or at least, not one that it more objective than "It's unnatural" or "The sanctity of marriage!".
Okay, consent. Why the hell would consent be important?! We display them in zoos to earn money - without their consent. We jack them off to collect their semen (effectively bestiality) - without their consent. We keep them as pets - without their consent. Doctors put their fists in their vaginas (effectively bestiality) - without their consent.
If you're a vegan and you reject all 'exploitation' of animals - okay, I understand your logic and your argument, and I respect you. But you're probably not a vegan and you have no problems with zoos, pets and eating meat.
Animals are not sapient - they will never give their consent or enter into a contract. To demand it for bestiality but not for all other human-animal interactions is hypocritical.
By the way - you have no problems with bestiality. I already gave you examples of 'bestiality' that occur regularly: jacking animals off for their semen or doctors putting their arms up vaginas. 'Putting your arm into a vagina' is normally seen as 'sex', and if it happens without consent it's 'rape'. Do you think it's rape when it happens to an animal? You probably don't oppose those activities - and it shows how you only oppose bestiality when the human enjoys it - and thus, that this is about enforcing your morality, not any objective standard.
"Get passed the initial "ew, gross" factors, discuss them objectively."
Cakes: Any number of perversions will be able to fight for societal acceptance based on the exact same logic as the LGBT rights movement. After all, incest, bestiality, necrophilia and cannibalism don't REALLY hurt anyone. I can easily see a future in which I'm called a bigot because I find incest vile and will not allow it near my family. It's a bad sign of where society is going. </devils_advocate>
And those are legitimate concerns for the effects of the LGBT movement, just as they were legitimate concerns for the effects of interracial marriages. [/sarcasm]
Those are totally different situations which are illegal for totally different reasons. If there does come a time when society is willing to get passed the initial "ew, gross" factors to discuss them objectively as we today wish to objectively discuss homosexual marriage, then so be it. But, there are a lot of objective problems involved in those which would have to be taken into account, making them just as bullshit as any other slippery slope argument (the lack of consent from animals and their inability to enter into a contract, the astronomically higher rate of severe birth defects in children born of incestuousness relationships, whether or not you should consider a dead body an independent object which can be totally owned by any other person or treat it as though the person who previously owned it still has rights, etc).
Give me one objective reason gay marriage could be a bad idea and I might consider saying they are comparable to those other situations. Until then, just...stop.
You can't give me one objective reason why harmless bestiality should be illegal. Or at least, not one that it more objective than "It's unnatural" or "The sanctity of marriage!".
Okay, consent. Why the hell would consent be important?! We display them in zoos to earn money - without their consent. We jack them off to collect their semen (effectively bestiality) - without their consent. We keep them as pets - without their consent. Doctors put their fists in their vaginas (effectively bestiality) - without their consent.
If you're a vegan and you reject all 'exploitation' of animals - okay, I understand your logic and your argument, and I respect you. But you're probably not a vegan and you have no problems with zoos, pets and eating meat.
Animals are not sapient - they will never give their consent or enter into a contract. To demand it for bestiality but not for all other human-animal interactions is hypocritical.
By the way - you have no problems with bestiality. I already gave you examples of 'bestiality' that occur regularly: jacking animals off for their semen or doctors putting their arms up vaginas. 'Putting your arm into a vagina' is normally seen as 'sex', and if it happens without consent it's 'rape'. Do you think it's rape when it happens to an animal? You probably don't oppose those activities - and it shows how you only oppose bestiality when the human enjoys it - and thus, that this is about enforcing your morality, not any objective standard.
"Get passed the initial "ew, gross" factors, discuss them objectively."
You need to stop to argue those reasonable positions.
PS: Animals give consent. Its my only addition to this discussion.
The only valid point that I can find is whether or not it is a gateway towards other types of marriage/bonding tolerances. "If we allow this, what will we allow next? Human-animal marriage? Adult-minor marriage?" Now of course, I have nothing against it if you truly feel for your dog, or if you're like Edgar Allen Poe, and actually love someone that young, but that could be a feasible argument....
Mournful Crow: The only valid point that I can find is whether or not it is a gateway towards other types of marriage/bonding tolerances. "If we allow this, what will we allow next? Human-animal marriage? Adult-minor marriage?" Now of course, I have nothing against it if you truly feel for your dog, or if you're like Edgar Allen Poe, and actually love someone that young, but that could be a feasible argument....
Actually, no, it wouldn't. That's a classic slipery slope fallacy. Allow me to reverse it for you.
"If we ban gay marriage, what will we ban next? Interracial marriage? Heterosexual marriage?".
Sounds silly now, doesn't it. In short, no, a slippery slope is not a feasible argument if you can't prove that A will lead to B, B to C, and so forth.
My favourite ones are the ones that can be summed up as "If you let gay marriages happen, the communists win."
I don't know, you'd think a group that prides itself on minimal government interference and the freedom of the individual would be less inclined to prevent something like gay marriage.
Mournful Crow: The only valid point that I can find is whether or not it is a gateway towards other types of marriage/bonding tolerances. "If we allow this, what will we allow next? Human-animal marriage? Adult-minor marriage?" Now of course, I have nothing against it if you truly feel for your dog, or if you're like Edgar Allen Poe, and actually love someone that young, but that could be a feasible argument....
Actually, no, it wouldn't. That's a classic slipery slope fallacy. Allow me to reverse it for you.
"If we ban gay marriage, what will we ban next? Interracial marriage? Heterosexual marriage?".
Sounds silly now, doesn't it. In short, no, a slippery slope is not a feasible argument if you can't prove that A will lead to B, B to C, and so forth.
I know that, I was just trying to find something to add here, since I didn't see it yet... I'll shut up now...
Mournful Crow: I know that, I was just trying to find something to add here, since I didn't see it yet... I'll shut up now...
Oh don't get me wrong; that "argument" is used frequently...too frequently for my taste. It just doesn't get any less silly no matter how often silly people repeat it. I still fail to see how they consider it a good one, however, really *shrug*
Mournful Crow: I know that, I was just trying to find something to add here, since I didn't see it yet... I'll shut up now...
Oh don't get me wrong; that "argument" is used frequently...too frequently for my taste. It just doesn't get any less silly no matter how often silly people repeat it. I still fail to see how they consider it a good one, however, really *shrug*
I like how a comedian (can't remember the name, sorry) put it: "Back then, with the African Americans, it was "Don't let the Blacks marry us, have them marry each other instead." Now it's "Don't let the Gays marry each other, have them marry... Us...""
Magenera: How about government don't endorse Marriage at all, and instead just promote a contract between consenting adults which have the same rights as marriage licenses but basically leaving the government neutral. This solves the problem, gays aren't discriminated on marriage as they have the same rights as hetero couples do. People who says marriage is between a woman and a man gets to keep it that way, and everyone can literally think of it what ever they want it to be. It is a easy solution, why this have never been brought up is beyond me.
This. This times a million squared to infinity this.
Witty Name Here: Anyways, if there's a God that created gay people than says they can't act the way he made them, then that's not the God I worship, if anything that's a God of intolerance.
This is so contrary to Christianity it makes my brain hurt. What ever happened to "take up your cross"?
The only thing that I believe God doesn't have a hand in is whether a person has a mental or physical disorder or not
So you get to decide in what areas (i.e. the areas convenient to you) He isn't omnipotent or omniscient?
tstorm823: Because within 3 weeks of federal acknowledgement of gay marriages, churches and states will be getting sued because (with no offense to those who stand to benefit from their work) a lot of the people leading the charge are douchebags like PETA who will try and force the attention back to them.
To the guy above who suggested the "no legal marriage" solution, I stand with that opinion and could give a big history lesson to back it up. I have a friend who is the stereotypical bleeding-heart liberal; she is in no way a minority but she constantly makes claims about what minorities deserve. Anyway, I gave her the big history lesson and explained all the reasons why acknowledging gay marriage legally isn't actually a solution and getting rid legal marriage benefits is an actual solution, and her response was something along the lines of "gay people wouldn't be content with that."
That sort of illustrates the problem here. The terms they are fighting for are not a fight for equality, but a fight for benefits and forced acceptance because
a) They are fighting for a specific group, not a general equality. "We want hospital visitation rights for gay spouses" still restricts that right to married couples. Why can't a life long bachelor designate that right to a close friend? Fighting to gain marriage rights for gay couples instead of fighting for rights not descriminated by whatever socially defined "marriage," whatever that may be, would be like fighting in past eras to end slavery of only black people, but being fine with other slavery.
b) It doesn't acknowledge the legal assignment of rights based upon a specific cultural tradtion. Adding gay marriage to the marriage umbrella is saying "your tradition doesn't include us, so we should change that tradition" instead of "your tradition doesn't include us, so we shouldn't base laws off of it."
Captcha: Fuzzy Wuzzy
I actually really identify with your point of view and feel that this is why feminism has become so skewed now all these years later.
I don't necessarily agree with the getting rid of the benefits of marriage so much as not having the benefits revolve around marriage and more of a life partner or someone of significant meaning.
hmmm I notice the wholes in my logic I have some reading to read and thoughts to think, Thanks Staganant.
...
Did that just really happen? O.o
No point in coming on these forums unless your willing to concede when your wrong or simply don't know. If you aren't willing to admit your wrong you will just always be wrong. Nothing wrong with being wrong everyone is sometimes, just the better man learns from it and becomes stronger.
Well since we're playing the "biblical passage" game.
Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
You really need to tone it down with all the bible passages friend.
Anyways, if there's a God that created gay people than says they can't act the way he made them, then that's not the God I worship, if anything that's a God of intolerance.
The only thing that I believe God doesn't have a hand in is whether a person has a mental or physical disorder or not, and unless you start claiming Homosexuality is a "disorder" I see no reason to force homosexuals, some of whom aren't even christian, into not being married because of vaguely biblical reasons. America is a land for the free practice of faith for all religions, forcing a certain group to adhere to christian beliefs is just plain intolerance.