toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Selaphiel]

They are merely stats. They draw strong correlations. Just because those correlations point toward you being wrong doesn't mean you get to simply group them with "the fundamentalists." Causation doesn't exist without correlation. Odd that you are the one claiming to be objective here and yet you are essentially willing to throw out all existing data while dogmatically declaring that it is uncaused correlation....:think: Sounds familiar :idunno:

Causation does indeed go together with correlation, but you still have to establish a plausible causation. Correlation alone proves nothing (I have seen statistics that showed among other insane things strong correlation between not shaving and getting heart attacks) And I'm throwing it out because I see no plausible causation between being gay and doing drugs and being gay and being promiscuous and so forth. I do however see plausible causative links between being ostracized, prejudiced against and generally not being tolerated for who you are (to the point of violence and gross verbal abuse) and those things.

 

[Town Heretic]

2. The Christian life is an outward life. We are called to convert, to sanctify, to be the salt of the earth.

But nowhere to subjugate, to accomplish by fiat what we cannot by example.

Supporting things which fly in the face of Christ's work, even if there is no intention of practicing them yourself, certainly does not align with Christianity.

I think there's a difference, a rather important one, between supporting a principle of equity and supporting the act that follows from it. You could, for instance, believe and support the idea of free will without supporting its particular use to commit immoral or criminal acts. It might follow that you believe in the right to contract without believing in the value and worth of every contract made between men. Marriage is a contract as it pertains to the civil, secular institution of government, so far as that entity can impact and regulate it. I don't see how you can, in a secular context, arbitrarily deny one group of people the right you protect in every other absent a showing of justification, an overwhelming interest or clear and present danger, if you like.

Just a thought. :e4e:

 

[Delmar]

Considering it is impossible for like genders to marry, the point is moot.

I am against same sex sex.

 

[zoo22]

I am against same sex sex.

Just out of curiosity, what about a sexless same-sex marriage?

 

[Traditio]

Same sex marriage is a contradiction of terms.

 

[john w]

The whole "you can do it but I choose not to" argument falls apart when what is at stake is whether it is condoned by society/government itself. So:

1. According to that idea, you should be in favor of legalizing cocaine, meth, heroine, polygamy, suicide, mutual pederasty, etc. Of course you wouldn't yourself engage in any of those activities, but they wouldn't affect your life at all :dizzy:

2. The Christian life is an outward life. We are called to convert, to sanctify, to be the salt of the earth. Supporting things which fly in the face of Christ's work, even if there is no intention of practicing them yourself, certainly does not align with Christianity. It's just a veiled selfishness imo. Maybe you would say that morality should not be legislated. But what about the children who grow up in the depraved society you've helped create? What about the formation of individuals?

:e4e:

"Maybe you would say that morality should not be legislated."-Zippy

I do not think how you stated this was what you intended to convey, for laws, by legislation, are an imposition of morality. You may not agree with the morality that the laws are imposing. But they are "morale" "end games," if you will.

 

[zippy2006]

Could I get an answer here?

I don't see how you can, in a secular context, arbitrarily deny one group of people the right you protect in every other absent a showing of justification, an overwhelming interest or clear and present danger, if you like.

What precisely do you believe "the right we protect in every other group of people" is?

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

"Maybe you would say that morality should not be legislated."-Zippy

I do not think how you stated this was what you intended to convey, for laws, by legislation, are an imposition of morality. You may not agree with the morality that the laws are imposing. But they are "morale" "end games," if you will.

Good point, I agree. I meant it in the sense that some would say that we should not force a moral system upon those who do not understand it. I don't necessarily agree with that either, but there is an element to it that I agree with.

 

[Sherman]

In my previous post I probably failed to express my present views on this subject. I am against same sex marriage period. I am now apposed to all forms of sex outside of the heterosexual marriage union. This come from my shift to a more biblical world view.

 

[john w]

Good point, I agree. I meant it in the sense that some would say that we should not force a moral system upon those who do not understand it. I don't necessarily agree with that either, but there is an element to it that I agree with.

Fair enough. You are too reasonable(at least here) for my taste!

 

[john w]

In my previous post I probably failed to express my present views on this subject. I am against same sex marriage period. I am now apposed to all forms of sex outside of the heterosexual marriage union. This come from my shift to a more biblical world view.

You are a mean spirited, intolerant, bigoted, close minded, intolerant, judgmental, hate filled, "un cultured," narrow minded,unenlightened,anti-intellectual, anti-science, homophobic, militaristic, uncompassionate............ wacko. Don't you know that we are in the 21 st century?

And I would like to party with you, as you are a man with a spine, a backbone, conviction, a rare quality today, even within today's so called "Christianity."

 

[Town Heretic]

Could I get an answer here?



What precisely do you believe "the right we protect in every other group of people" is?

:e4e:

The right to contract. That is, again, what the secular point here involves and what the law governs in dissolution...the division of property, cessation of right between parties, etc. I don't think it should be a matter we vote on. Should Catholics be allowed to marry? Should we vote on it?

:e4e:

 

[Sherman]

You are a mean spirited, intolerant, bigoted, close minded, intolerant, judgmental, hate filled, "un cultured," narrow minded,unenlightened,anti-intellectual, anti-science, homophobic, militaristic, uncompassionate............ wacko. Don't you know that we are in the 21 st century?

And I would like to party with you, as you are a man with a spine, a backbone, conviction, a rare quality today, even within today's so called "Christianity."

I think I was just paid an enormous compliment. :chuckle:

:cheers: I wouldn't mind having a beer with you. Modern Christianity is very wimpy. It no longer takes a stand against immorality. Now its the old saw, love the sin hate sinner--I mean love the sinner hate sin, Christian doublespeak for ignoring their sin.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

The law moses received applied to the Jews only. Gentiles were under a different covenant.

The COMMANDMENTS may or may not have been meant for all, you can debate it either way, but let's assume it is for all but only of the all, those that chose to follow God. Homosexuality isn't a sin in the ten commandments.

And hating, campaigning against, marching against, legislating against a group that doesn't believe as you do, turns GOD into a terrorist, and is NOT how HE taught to behave.

Any other questions?

You haven't answered the first one yet. You said Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality, and I'm asking you Who gave the Law to Moses. Was it Jesus or somebody else?

 

[zippy2006]

I see no argument for it being disordered.

Odd that I would have to do this for a Christian:

1. Human anatomy. Do you think masturbation is disordered? Bestiality? Prostitution? The homosexual act? How do you actually think these things interact with Christian Charity and selfless love? Give me a break man.

2. Scripture. In addition to the Old Testament we have Paul himself Romans 1:24-25

3. What are our procreative organs for and what is love? Both are defaced on your view.

4. The strong correlations to any number of reprehensible lifestyles (understanding your rebuttal, I consider this a smaller point)

This is a terribly biased and non-factual statement. What religion? Where? Homosexual practice has existed for a very long time, and often times (such as ancient Rome) was not necessarily looked down on. But never once was "gay marriage" brought up. The idea is really laughable, and the Greeks would have had a ball with the concept.

There is no singular concept of marriage. What they thought back then is not really relevant at all. If you want to understand why the Greeks and Romans might have laughed at that concept you should read their understanding of the sexual act. Their views were founded on the "medical" opinion of the day. That opinion is nonsense today, so they might have thought otherwise if they knew better.

Who cares? They seem to have understood the sexual act better than we do. I assume my point stands as it was uncontested.

..."With secularism comes salvation" We have abortion, euthanasia, "homosexual rights," and large-scale genocide down pat. Apparently the consequences don't take too long.

None of those follow by necessity from secularism, that is a ridiculous statement.

A juicy assertion, unfortunately it is also out of line with the data we have :idunno: If you don't think euthanasia will follow then I'd say you're blinded, because your own arguments support it, and it is already beginning in Britain and elsewhere.

According to who? Certainly not the abortionists.

The definition of the words? A homosexual act is consensual otherwise it would be rape, murder is not the taking of a life against the someones will and thus a violation of their rights.

I guess your response only made sense when my words were pulled out of context :idunno:

Nowadays people seem to think murder is wrong only because it might injure them (selfishness).

How could you possibly know what people in general seems to think about that?

Because I do :chuckle: What is this, an argument about epistemology? The modern view believes law is there to protect those who are a part of the society, not to instill moral qualities, it's a simple fact.

 

[zippy2006]

The right to contract. That is, again, what the secular point here involves and what the law governs in dissolution...the division of property, cessation of right between parties, etc. I don't think it should be a matter we vote on. Should Catholics be allowed to marry? Should we vote on it?

:e4e:

I'll respond after you answer my initial post :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'll respond after you answer my initial post :e4e:

I've answered you in substance and on the point and principle. Respond if it pleases you. Withhold if it doesn't.

It's your dime. :e4e:

 

[Zeus]

I'll respond after you answer my initial post :e4e:

ZIPPY DO YOU REALLY NOT GET IT?

 

[zippy2006]

Well, I'd argue that they didn't really fight for change so much as they lived for it. I already believe that because our government looks Christian in so many ways. It has led to a secularization of Christianity and not to a sacredization (made that word up) of the state. As Lewis said, that Jesus didn't really bring with Him a political theory or a social plan. He brought the Gospel with Him.

Okay that makes sense to me

I'll go back to my original point. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I understand why they are, but I wonder if there would be any advantages for the believing people in this country (in particular) if the law was changed. I think there would be.:think:

I understand, though, that you think we would be giving up ground, but I'm not a postmillenialist. Well, at least, not most days.:chuckle:

Okay. :think: I've struggled with that question as well. I mean there is no need for us to help create a hell on earth so that we may stand against it. But your point is taken, at least in moderation.

First of all, I'm not really advocating a change of any kind. That said, a person who understands the severity of their wound might go visit the doctor more readily, no?

Yes :up:

Especially if the majority of citizens agree with the status quo? It is the ugly head of relativism rearing itself again; many people know God and know that homosexuality is disordered but they believe that their perspective is null and void because it is somehow "religious." Beans.

Now, I agree that in a democracy the law should be based on what the majority has come to a consensus on.

Indeed, this is one of my main thoughts on the issue.

:e4e:

Interesting thoughts, as always :e4e:

Dangerous and messy, but fun?

Like discussing battle plans in the middle of a battle :chuckle:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

The whole "you can do it but I choose not to" argument falls apart when what is at stake is whether it is condoned by society/government itself. So:

1. According to that idea, you should be in favor of legalizing cocaine, meth, heroine, polygamy, suicide, mutual pederasty, etc. Of course you wouldn't yourself engage in any of those activities, but they wouldn't affect your life at all :dizzy:

2. The Christian life is an outward life. We are called to convert, to sanctify, to be the salt of the earth. Supporting things which fly in the face of Christ's work, even if there is no intention of practicing them yourself, certainly does not align with Christianity. It's just a veiled selfishness imo. Maybe you would say that morality should not be legislated. But what about the children who grow up in the depraved society you've helped create? What about the formation of individuals?

:e4e:

It all boils down to priorities. Some people would rather be right with God, and others would rather be right with man.