Gay Marriage and Homophobia

[astro]

You argue that because homosexuals are born gay (I don't know, nor care) it's okay. What if some day we found that rape is all in the genes? What if we find that various things the bible clearly outlines as sin, is all in the genes? Would you then extend your arguement of "born that way, don't be a hater!" to others?

This seems obvious. Some people are more prone to violence than others for example (due to genetic factors/environment etc.) but that is absolutely no excuse for sin.

The Bible is and always has been clear on the subject, these fine "christians" just refuse to see it because it is not to their liking.

 

[contemplative]

^Strawman Much?^ You kind of ran with this one. No worries I suppose I would have done the same.

I highly doubt you could have strung this sort of argument together, because you don't even seem to understand it well enough to respond to it.

I can really only speak for Americans on this one and say that we have the freedom of religion. You could worship whatever you wanted. However, we don't have an amendment that includes freedom of Marriage, where you can marry whatever sex you want.

You haven't really begun to answer the question. Since you represent yourself as a fan of cold hard logic, you should be familiar with this sort of argument, though. You set out certain principles; I ask you to apply them to a different sort of case to see if you're consistent or if these principles you're espousing are just conveniences you've adopted for the purposes of this argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, if these aren't the sort of things you've said:

* People who choose a self-identification should not be recognized as a civil rights group.
* If a group sets itself apart by a choice, we are under no obligation to extend to them extra rights to protect their choices.
* Things which are not the same are not to be treated the same.​

It doesn't suffice here to say that we have decided on freedom of religion, because some groups have been given religious rights above other groups, whereas others in very similar situations haven't. I'm asking you to make decisions, so that we can see if you really believe what you're saying above.

Again, let's consider specific cases. Federal law allows the Native American Church (by name) to use peyote in its rituals. People who use peyote not under the jurisdiction of the NAC have been prosecuted, even when they've claimed religious freedom. So you're left with a conundrum. To be consistent with the principles you seem to set out above, it seems straightforward that you disagree with the ability of the NAC alone to use peyote. How would you prefer to resolve this? (You could also consider the controversial "eagle feather law.")

Again, what about the kirpan? Baptized Sikhs are allowed to carry weapons into places where, say, Christians are not allowed. Alternatively, what about plural marriage in fundamentalist Mormonism? Or, the Texas Constitution, which to this day states:

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Etc., etc. I'm asking you to address the questions which "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, WHEEEE" doesn't answer. I'm asking you to address the situations in which there are clear inequalities for particular groups who have chosen their religious identities. Should these be taken away? Should they be given across the board?

I don't know if I would call it a theocracy, more like Straight Dave's Man Slammin MaX-OuT! ;-)

I sense we've exceeded your attention span.

 

[Protection_Retribution]

Well that is true with genetics, serial killers brains are natrually different than others, those prone to violence aswell, its still wrong to kill people though and with murder its not simply on a religous level its on a social one.

 

[Gerald]

Marriage isn't about making kids it isn't about a man and a women its about two people coming together who care for each other, and being legally joined together and then getting a little peice of paper that basically says he/she gets 50% of you're property when you die. Enjoy..

how superficially a marriage can be defined by man.
do you know what is marriage in God's eyes? Before trying to define what marriage is we need to know what is it before God, since it's not a mere social institution but divine.


God bless you brother

 

[LiLPoP]

I 100% disagree, we should live in community. But this is not the point.

Also, one last issue to think about;

Marriage originally was about property. The man married and the woman then changed her last name and he inherited the property that he had, in fact women were treated as property. Adam and Eve didn't marry...."two become one" God is saying...once sex happens they are bound...marriage a man made idea. The ceremony is a man made idea...the changing of last names is a man made idea, the nuclear family is a man made idea...The idea that we need boundaries to our neighbors is man made...in biblical times it was a community/group...everything was. Different cultures today, it is about Community of the whole family and neighbors becoming as family. Anyway, we are off topic now, So I am done.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I 100% disagree, we should live in community. But this is not the point.

Also, one last issue to think about;

Marriage originally was about property. The man married and the woman then changed her last name and he inherited the property that he had, in fact women were treated as property. Adam and Eve didn't marry...."two become one" God is saying...once sex happens they are bound...marriage a man made idea. The ceremony is a man made idea...the changing of last names is a man made idea, the nuclear family is a man made idea...The idea that we need boundaries to our neighbors is man made...in biblical times it was a community/group...everything was. Different cultures today, it is about Community of the whole family and neighbors becoming as family. Anyway, we are off topic now, So I am done.

I don't think anyone is saying that Adam and Eve walked up to the Eden County courthouse to fill out a marriage certificate. That part is certainly man made. Marriage is a covenent between the man and the woman. Adam and Eve were married, not in a legal documentation sense, but rather in a Divine manner. This is why biblical Christians are opposed to Same-Sex marriage. Marriage is sacred.

I'm curious though, which "marriage" are we speaking of when it comes to property? If it's the Eden County courthouse version, sure... I would be willing to say you may be right, I would like someone saying it other than you, say an external source. That would not negate God's view of the Covenent marriage as is expressed in the bible.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Well that is true with genetics, serial killers brains are natrually different than others, those prone to violence aswell, its still wrong to kill people though and with murder its not simply on a religous level its on a social one.

Right, so why do we think we can ignore our line of reasoning for this issue, but apply it elsewhere? It doesn't cause harm? Who says harm-reduction is important? Us?

 

[Liamson]

I highly doubt you could have strung this sort of argument together, because you don't even seem to understand it well enough to respond to it.



You haven't really begun to answer the question. Since you represent yourself as a fan of cold hard logic, you should be familiar with this sort of argument, though. You set out certain principles; I ask you to apply them to a different sort of case to see if you're consistent or if these principles you're espousing are just conveniences you've adopted for the purposes of this argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, if these aren't the sort of things you've said:

* People who choose a self-identification should not be recognized as a civil rights group.
* If a group sets itself apart by a choice, we are under no obligation to extend to them extra rights to protect their choices.
* Things which are not the same are not to be treated the same.​

It doesn't suffice here to say that we have decided on freedom of religion, because some groups have been given religious rights above other groups, whereas others in very similar situations haven't. I'm asking you to make decisions, so that we can see if you really believe what you're saying above.

Again, let's consider specific cases. Federal law allows the Native American Church (by name) to use peyote in its rituals. People who use peyote not under the jurisdiction of the NAC have been prosecuted, even when they've claimed religious freedom. So you're left with a conundrum. To be consistent with the principles you seem to set out above, it seems straightforward that you disagree with the ability of the NAC alone to use peyote. How would you prefer to resolve this? (You could also consider the controversial "eagle feather law.")

Again, what about the kirpan? Baptized Sikhs are allowed to carry weapons into places where, say, Christians are not allowed. Alternatively, what about plural marriage in fundamentalist Mormonism? Or, the Texas Constitution, which to this day states:



Etc., etc. I'm asking you to address the questions which "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, WHEEEE" doesn't answer. I'm asking you to address the situations in which there are clear inequalities for particular groups who have chosen their religious identities. Should these be taken away? Should they be given across the board?



I sense we've exceeded your attention span.

I'm not sure if I would call it my attention span but, there are some areas that have been exceeded and not in any particular fashion by you. So here we go.

If we have made a choice, the consequences of that choice according to whatever society we live in is our responsibility to take into account. No two societies have equal laws. If I get jailed and stoned in Iran for being a Christian is that fair? Well, yes it is because according to that society it has been deemed fair. If I choose to be a child molester in New Jersey, and I get caught on to Catch a Predator by Chris Matthews is that fair? I'm sure there are places in the world that such a thing is not illegal.

There are compounds in Utah where children like 14-17 are placed into arranged plural marriages. If I disagree with them getting "extra rights" to accommodate this am I evil? I suppose that all falls under Religious freedom.

People should be treated fairly, each according to what he done or chooses to do, that is justice, not equality. If I choose to do something beyond the bounds of a given society, I should be held accountable for that choice. This isn't an ethics sandbox class where I make laws. Laws exist and I'm not a Liberal judge so I can't single handedly make new laws.

But I'll play your Lockean Sovereignty game. Under the umbrella of Religious freedom if difference sects wish to gain "extra rights" this must be sought democratically and be approved in accordance with whatever binding document that charters how such things are to be accomplished. (ie a Constitution)

Because Recreational Peyote use is illegal, does that give the native American Religious practices inequality with their American counterparts? Yes however, is it fair? And the answer is yes. Equality is not my sacred Cow. I also think that having Indian Casinos in states that ban Gambling, except on Indian Casinos, is Unequal and Fair. Equality should never leverage itself against Natural Law, because in any just society making things of unequal value equal, will create a disparity.

In the Military Women are not allowed into Combat Roles, even with this rule they still see Combat. Is it really equal, no but, its fair.

 

[contemplative]

You capitalize strangely enough to make me wonder if you're not some sort of German sleeper agent.

In any case, thanks for the answer. It does clarify certain points.

 

[FSUBoy966]

I'm not sure if I would call it my attention span but, there are some areas that have been exceeded and not in any particular fashion by you. So here we go.

If we have made a choice, the consequences of that choice according to whatever society we live in is our responsibility to take into account. No two societies have equal laws. If I get jailed and stoned in Iran for being a Christian is that fair? Well, yes it is because according to that society it has been deemed fair. If I choose to be a child molester in New Jersey, and I get caught on to Catch a Predator by Chris Matthews is that fair? I'm sure there are places in the world that such a thing is not illegal.

There are compounds in Utah where children like 14-17 are placed into arranged plural marriages. If I disagree with them getting "extra rights" to accommodate this am I evil? I suppose that all falls under Religious freedom.

People should be treated fairly, each according to what he done or chooses to do, that is justice, not equality. If I choose to do something beyond the bounds of a given society, I should be held accountable for that choice. This isn't an ethics sandbox class where I make laws. Laws exist and I'm not a Liberal judge so I can't single handedly make new laws.

But I'll play your Lockean Sovereignty game. Under the umbrella of Religious freedom if difference sects wish to gain "extra rights" this must be sought democratically and be approved in accordance with whatever binding document that charters how such things are to be accomplished. (ie a Constitution)

Because Recreational Peyote use is illegal, does that give the native American Religious practices inequality with their American counterparts? Yes however, is it fair? And the answer is yes. Equality is not my sacred Cow. I also think that having Indian Casinos in states that ban Gambling, except on Indian Casinos, is Unequal and Fair. Equality should never leverage itself against Natural Law, because in any just society making things of unequal value equal, will create a disparity.

In the Military Women are not allowed into Combat Roles, even with this rule they still see Combat. Is it really equal, no but, its fair.

Actually, women are now being allowed on the front lines...

And "extra rights?" No, bud. My brother just wants the right to marry the one person he's ever loved. Just like you and I have. At least SOME states are starting to get less closed minded about it.

 

[FSUBoy966]

Right, so why do we think we can ignore our line of reasoning for this issue, but apply it elsewhere? It doesn't cause harm? Who says harm-reduction is important? Us?

the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, most ruling government bodies, the European Union... Need I go on?

And YOUR "line of reasoning" isn't very logical. If something doesn't harm someone, others, or yourself, it shouldn't be illegal. Rape, murder, theft, etc all cause harm t someone mentally or physically. Obviously you're comparing an orange to a giant vat of agent orange.

 

[contemplative]

And "extra rights?" No, bud.

This is probably more my fault than his. I explicitly asked him to consider cases in which religious minorities were given rights that other groups weren't. My point here is that even if gay marriage is seen as extending extra civil rights to a minority, there are some well-established cases in US practice where this has already been done. I wanted to know if, given his arguments above, these should be revoked, given to everybody, etc. From what I understand of his answer, he doesn't necessarily mind if minority groups are given rights above and beyond others.

In other words, the question doesn't have to be about equal rights, egalitarianism, equality, etc. This is good news for the conversation.

 

[Liamson]

You capitalize strangely enough to make me wonder if you're not some sort of German sleeper agent.

In any case, thanks for the answer. It does clarify certain points.

I'm not saying that some sort of Compromise is not inevitable at the federal level but, whatever it is, I don't think it will be the same thing you or I are looking for.

Actually, women are now being allowed on the front lines...

And "extra rights?" No, bud. My brother just wants the right to marry the one person he's ever loved. Just like you and I have. At least SOME states are starting to get less closed minded about it.

Um, you can check it out for yourself but, there are no active combat MOS', Ratings or Specializations in the US military with a Circled C, that allow Women. Women have served in Combat as MP's performing convey escort duty or as Pilots. Women engaging in offensive Operations as a part of a Specific Combat Unit is unheard of.

 

[jimmydiggs]

the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, most ruling government bodies, the European Union... Need I go on?

No you don't have to go on, you said what I knew you would say, and what I wanted you to say. These are human institutions. Hardly an authority for what is moral. If you have an objective moral law, and you violate that, it is immoral. Christianity is not concerned with making everyone feel good with their heated car seats and fuzzy cup holders. This "Harm-Reduction" idea is Secular Humanism, and it is anti-Christian. If we are going to use Humanism as a guide for morality, I suggest that in order to remain truthful to ourselves that we stop calling our selves Christian, and call ourselves Humanists. I wonder how you feel about Old Testament laws, given to Moses by God. They certainly weren't in-line with Humanist thought.

If Christ had concerned himself with this "Harm-Reduction" theology, he would have never died on the cross. It would have harmed him too much.

And YOUR "line of reasoning" isn't very logical.

Why? Is it because I disagree with you? If something is illogical, point it out. Blanket statements like this are border-line Ad-Hominem Fallacies. Saying something is illogical, to avoid having to address the matter further.

If something doesn't harm someone, others, or yourself, it shouldn't be illegal.

How serious do you want to apply this? There are many things that cause harm that are legal, such as alcohol, gasoline, guns, money, knifes, etc... There are many things that don't cause harm that are illegal, ever rolled through a 4-way? That was illegal.

Rape, murder, theft, etc all cause harm t someone mentally or physically. Obviously you're comparing an orange to a giant vat of agent orange.

No, it's using an arguement consitantly. You argue for sodomy as being biological, and that it shouldn't be stigmatized as a sin(just as divorce/adultery should be), and that as a result it's okay. Yet, you say this line of reasoning is not applicable to other things we have the same credibility of research on, or better credibility.

He's clearly oversimplifying, but Fallon says the orbital cortex puts a brake on another part of the brain called the amygdala, which is involved with aggression and appetites. But in some people, there's an imbalance — the orbital cortex isn't doing its job — perhaps because the person had a brain injury or was born that way.
"What's left? What takes over?" he asks. "The area of the brain that drives your id-type behaviors, which is rage, violence, eating, sex, drinking."

(several paragraphs later)

Fallon cautions that this is a young field. Scientists are just beginning to study this area of the brain — much less the brains of criminals. Still, he says the evidence is accumulating that some people's brains predispose them toward violence and that psychopathic tendencies may be passed down from one generation to another.

A Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret : NPR <-- click for more

Inside A Psychopath's Brain: The Sentencing Debate : NPR <--- more reading

I condemn unjustified killing, by the Word of God. So far you have condemned it, based on a Secular Humanistic principle of "that which harms least is best" which is completely subjective, and in the eye of the beholder. If you do not adhere to a moral law, you ultimately fall into Moral Nihilism.



If you continue to use this Harm-Reduction principle as the basis of morality, I will have to ask you to quit using it on these forums to prevent diluting the Word of God, as it holds no water amongst Biblical Christians, yet easily sways and misinforms the "little ones".

If someone is holding a gun to your head, and demands you renounce Christ, I would hope you abandon this harm-reduction principle at that time. Renouncing Christ would cause you the least harm.
If you serve the Living God of the Bible dilligently, you will receive harm.



Ten Shekels and a Shirt by Paris Reidhead <--- sermon on humanism (Ten Shekels and a Shirt by Paris Reidhead)


The bible is very clear on the sinful act of Sodomy.

 

[FSUBoy966]

Um, you can check it out for yourself but, there are no active combat MOS', Ratings or Specializations in the US military with a Circled C, that allow Women. Women have served in Combat as MP's performing convey escort duty or as Pilots. Women engaging in offensive Operations as a part of a Specific Combat Unit is unheard of.

I'm aware of that law. I have friends and family in the military. They're changing the rules of combat and allowing women into combat roles now. It's a new thing. It hasn't been initiated yet but it will be enacted around the same time as don't ask don't tell is abolished. Both very good situations for our serviceman and women.

 

[Honey12]

All I can say about any of this is that no matter what you think is right or wrong, in this case specifically homosexuality I guess, it's not our job to judge a person for their sins. That's the Lord's place. Yes, we're entitled to think it's wrong, but we should not treat them badly. The best we can do is spread the word and try to show them the love of God.

 

[CS1]

Equality has become a religion and an ideology. Thus, it goes by the name of ‘egalitarianism’. It’s not simply about taking notice of things that are equal or trying to make social laws equally just for everyone. It’s about forcing equality on things and people that are not equal and can never be equal. It’s about pretending that a dumb person is really just as smart as an intelligent person by coming up with endless social or historical
excuses for the dumb person’s failures or by redefining intelligence. All sides try to justify their views or position on the basis of equality–one kind or another. So, it’s only natural that the people pushing the gay agenda use the equality argument for ‘gay marriage’. They say gay couples should have equal right to marriage as normal or heterosexual couples do. And, if such is not provided for them, society is evil, wicked, and oppressive.

Of course, equality is not synonymous with sameness. Sameness means that two things are alike. Equality means bestowing equal value to two things which may or may not be alike. For instance, an orange and a tennis ball are not the same, but they can have equal value if both cost $1. But, only a fool would say a tennis ball should be categorized as a food item because its monetary value is equal to that of an apple. They are of equal value but not the same thing.The problem of marriage equality is more serious because gay marriage is utterly valueless. A tennis ball is good for playing and an Orange is good for eating. But, what is ‘gay marriage’ good for? Gays cannot have kids. I know of no child that was born of a man having sex with another man or two women being sexual together. So, homosexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality. A ‘gay family’ is a culturally constructed fantasy as no life can be created by homosexual behavior. Gay people have to engage in heterosexual behavior themselves to create life or they have to adopt children produced by heterosexual unions. So, in a ‘gay family’, the child(though created through heterosexual union) is denied the healthy and normal attentions of a father and mother but instead led to believe that he’s the product of two men sleeping with one another or two women doing much the same together. In other words, ‘gay marriage’ is a pathetic lie. It is not same as real marriage; it is not even equal in value with real marriage. It is a monstrous perversion of the concept of marriage, either for the purpose of undermining the foundations of our civilization so as to bring forth social breakdown whereupon a wholly radical new order will be built OR for the purpose of feeling oh-so-morally-hip-and-narcissistic among airheaded liberals who’ve been brainwashed by pop culture and radical professors into thinking it’s uncool and lame to oppose ‘gay marriage’.

It’s time for Christians to stop being afraid of the word ‘equality’. It’s about time Christians said, “not only is ‘gay marriage’ not equal to real marriage but that the very concept of marriage equality is a really stupid idea.” Marriage has its own meaning, purpose, values, and design. It is what it is according to its needs, purpose, and meaning. It is a form of human relationship with its own set of rules. Indeed, if we are to expand on the definition of marriage, why not call every relationship a form of marriage? Why not call the relationship between employer and employee a marriage? Why not call the relationship between a coach and his players a marriage? Why not call the relationship between a movie director and actor a marriage? After all, ‘marriage’ has been used metaphorically, as in ‘marriage made in hell’, ‘marriage of talents’, etc. Why not turn metaphors into literal meanings? And, what’s with American Idol saying some people sing better? Can’t have that, can we? Why not say all people have the same singing talent and that ‘bad singing’ is actually good singing except that we don’t know it yet because we are badsingophobes?

So rather than posting a bunch of verses about how God sees Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, I thought I would use reason. The People who have engaged in this know which side of the issue God is for, they know what they are doing. But sometimes its up to us to make each other realize just how silly the people who oppose the truth are.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I like your post however, you cannot reason with sin. the Gay marriage issues is not about reason it is sin. Now the church has tried to be reasonable with the subject but what it has done is created a sub culture that has came into the church and try to reason to the church why it is ok. The answer is very clear God is not for it and many people do not fear God and respect His word about it. Now the reason why verese are posted is because it is the word of God that should be enough. So for you to use reason when they don't listen to the living God I have only one Q? for you, who are you?

 

[Liamson]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I like your post however, you cannot reason with sin. the Gay marriage issues is not about reason it is sin. Now the church has tried to be reasonable with the subject but what it has done is created a sub culture that has came into the church and try to reason to the church why it is ok. The answer is very clear God is not for it and many people do not fear God and respect His word about it. Now the reason why verese are posted is because it is the word of God that should be enough. So for you to use reason when they don't listen to the living God I have only one Q? for you, who are you?

Because they know the truth, it is not the truth they are interested in. They have rationalized within themselves what it is that they are doing. I cannot hold them to OUR standard because we as Christians have counted the cost of what it means to follow Christ. We are "set apart" for the sake of our Lord and His purpose. The scripture has more weight to us, who would choose to follow it, than someone who would choose to live as he or she sees fit.

Jesus did not impose Himself on anyone whether they wanted it or not.* Neither should I.



*unless you are Calvinist

 

[christianchristina]

What point are you making?

 

[aussieguy]

ok so first off a phobia is a type of anxiety disorder which means when i subject approahes or gets closer to the object of their phobia their anxiety increases and depending on their severity of their phobia it could lead into them having a panic attack/ hyperventilate and could pass out ... so having said that if there really is someone who ACTUALLY does have homophobia i would really like to to meet them as that would be an interesting experience hahahaha.

second of all while as already stated by many people homosexuality is a sin one of many sins, so those who practice this sin still face the other sins they have committed such as lying, stealing, blaspheming and will have to face God on judgment day and which is why they need to come to repent of their sins and come to Jesus in faith and for us to preach the gospel to them is the most loving thing we can do as we dont want them to go to hell

thirdly we need to stand up for marriage as it is starting to become meaningless if dont hold to its true nature which was sanctioned by God for a male and a female to come together as one, to love each other under God and also for the purpose of procreation in which homosexual kinda cant do lol . marriage is also a representative of Christ the groom coming back for His bride the church which would be married together and a great ceremony. that we as the church are His chosen ones who He has not forsaken and what a glorious day that would be!