Gay marriage

[Honey12]

I know homosexuality is considered a sin. But that's not what this is about.
I also know it's wrong to support sin or to make it easier for others. But I've always done my best to love everyone, even those unbelievers and those who don't repent for their sins (for lack of better words), like homosexuals. I'm friendly, in fact I have gay friends. They're good people and support my life in Christ. Even though I know homosexuality is wrong, I know it's not my job to judge them or punish them, so I'm always left with the dilemma, should I or shouldn't I support gay marriage.
I know it's considered very wrong, but you don't have to remind me.
However, I don't think it's ruining the sanctity of marriage, plenty of other things are doing that job. It's not going to harm anyone. And I feel like if they want such a basic right that those who do worse things than them have, they should be allowed it too.
Is that so wrong?
I know some will have strong opinions about this, please try to not be overly rude.

 

[djness]

I know homosexuality is considered a sin. But that's not what this is about.
I also know it's wrong to support sin or to make it easier for others. But I've always done my best to love everyone, even those unbelievers and those who don't repent for their sins (for lack of better words), like homosexuals. I'm friendly, in fact I have gay friends. They're good people and support my life in Christ. Even though I know homosexuality is wrong, I know it's not my job to judge them or punish them, so I'm always left with the dilemma, should I or shouldn't I support gay marriage.
I know it's considered very wrong, but you don't have to remind me.
However, I don't think it's ruining the sanctity of marriage, plenty of other things are doing that job. It's not going to harm anyone. And I feel like if they want such a basic right that those who do worse things than them have, they should be allowed it too.
Is that so wrong?
I know some will have strong opinions about this, please try to not be overly rude.

There is a thread here on this topic. It has been argued that it is "harmless" many times.
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/24058-homosexual-christian.html

 

[jonathanbchristian]

Gay marriage is like Sodom and Gommorah. I think that it's good to pray for people, even love lost people. That said, gay Marriage means they get benifits from the government. I believe they can get saved but as a Christian I believe supporting (making official) what they do is wicked. You said you think it's a sin; with more rights as gays you might be the one who gets in trouble for your belief, with the government. Preaching that it's evil could become illegal.

 

[ASK]

It keeps sounding like you only want people to post in this who agree with

I think they should have all the legal equality, except it shouldn't be marriage. It's a union, but not a holy one. I don't think ministers shouldn't lead the ceremony, I would be quite upset if they did.

 

[ASK]

Homosexual and Christian? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[djness]

Important message from Sen. Val Stevens on R-71!

 

[Honey12]

It keeps sounding like you only want people to post in this who agree with

I think they should have all the legal equality, except it shouldn't be marriage. It's a union, but not a holy one. I don't think ministers shouldn't lead the ceremony, I would be quite upset if they did.

I guess your view is a lot more agreeable, I mean, it makes sense.
I don't want them to be able to get married to reach Christian standards since what they are doing is wrong to begin with. I just feel like with rapists, racists, abusers, people who do much more evil and harmful things are allowed the simple things, what makes gays any worse?

 

[ASK]

I guess your view is a lot more agreeable, I mean, it makes sense.
I don't want them to be able to get married to reach Christian standards since what they are doing is wrong to begin with. I just feel like with rapists, racists, abusers, people who do much more evil and harmful things are allowed the simple things, what makes gays any worse?

That's one of my pet peeves with some Christians. Some want to pick the speck out of a homosexual person eye, but leave the log their own.

(I love using thing from the Bible to make my point!)

 

[Deadflesh]

I know homosexuality is considered a sin. But that's not what this is about.
I also know it's wrong to support sin or to make it easier for others. But I've always done my best to love everyone, even those unbelievers and those who don't repent for their sins (for lack of better words), like homosexuals. I'm friendly, in fact I have gay friends. They're good people and support my life in Christ. Even though I know homosexuality is wrong, I know it's not my job to judge them or punish them, so I'm always left with the dilemma, should I or shouldn't I support gay marriage.
I know it's considered very wrong, but you don't have to remind me.
However, I don't think it's ruining the sanctity of marriage, plenty of other things are doing that job. It's not going to harm anyone. And I feel like if they want such a basic right that those who do worse things than them have, they should be allowed it too.
Is that so wrong?
I know some will have strong opinions about this, please try to not be overly rude.

People want to single out one sin over another, but that isnt what God does. Dissobedience is dissobedeince.
That said.

WE should have NOTHING to do with the world.
(James 1:27, James 4:4, John 15:19, 1 John 4:5, 1 John 2:16, 1 John 5:4, Galatians 6:14, Colossians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 7:31)

So if thats the case, then we arent suppsoed to VOTE, we arent supposed to CARE what the WORLD does. AT ALL, there are no special cases if you go by scripture. it was MAN that made justification to accept certain thigns of the World.

So. Should we even CARE what Man does? No. we are to Worship God, Glorify GOD in all we do, adn PReach the gospel. Thats it. Everythign else is Dross, Dung, its passing away. If Gays want to marry, let them...we shouldnt care this world is evil anyway...always has. Should we SUPPORT Gay marraige? NO! But we shouldnt SUPPORT Straight marriage. We should preach the gospel. I love how Christianis think they can have a part in this world at all. MArriage, they way the World does it, is all Pagan customs anyway. God doesnt care about any of that. is it wrong to get married? no. For the right reasosn its a wonderfull thing. But Something like 90% of ALL marriages end in divorce, adn most mariages that dont end in divorce are angry, and not filled with the love of JESUS. MEN ARENT the Saviour o there wives(we are to love the woman like Jesus loved the church...he DIED for them...) and Wives arent submissive to the husbands(a picture of US submitting to GOD, which most dont do anyway)

If we continue to emulate the WORLD, then we will ahve to anser to JESUS when this all ends.

So should we have ANYTHING to do with this world?

Should we stop GAY marriage? no.

Should we BACK it? No!

Should we even pursue a relationship!? NO!

PURSUE JESUS, SEEK JESUS, FOLLOW JESUS, Keep eyes on Heavenly thigns, adn then all the rest will follow.

Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and ALL THESE THIGNS shall be added unto you.

We have to much of a carnal mindset, to much of the WORLD, not enough Jesus.

So if you ever see a "Christian" Protesting Gay marriage, politely ask him if that is the Gosepl? Politely tell him he is NOT doing the WILL of GOD.

And if someon you know who is a "Christian" is FIGHTING Gay Rights, politly ask them if that is the Gospel? Politley tell them they are NOT doing the Will of God. That they are emulating the WORLD.

And then see how "Christian" either of them stay.

Be spotless. its a command. Jesus bless you.

 

[MickNick]

The point behind whether or not you support gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The point is this: do you believe that all people are equal, and should have equal rights? If the answer is yes, then following naturally with that thinking you would support gay marriage. Making gay marriage illegal is an egregious violation of every man and woman's status of equal rights under the law. So called "civil unions" are an offensive attempt to make a "separate but equal" institution of marriage for homosexuals. It is wrong, it is unjust, and it is in violation of everything the United States stands for.

You can hate homosexuality all you want. You can think it's awful, sick, and un-Christian. That's your right. But the second you try to take away their rights, you are crossing a line. The rest of the country is not obligated to operate under your religious code. Only YOU are obligated. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. But don't ever presume to try to tell someone they don't have the right to do so, because it offends YOUR religious sensibilities.

 

[contemplative]

Gay marriage is like Sodom and Gommorah.

In fact, it's not. In Sodom and Gommorah, there were roving bands of rapists. This is hardly the same thing as two men deciding to settle down, unless their vows happen to include raping passersby. In many ways, monogamous homosexual relationships would have made S&G much more tolerable. Did you read the story?

You said you think it's a sin; with more rights as gays you might be the one who gets in trouble for your belief, with the government. Preaching that it's evil could become illegal.

If this occurs, it is because people have abused others in the name of belief. If you misuse a tool to harm those around you, we will take it away from you. This is one of the great things about living in a civilized society.

I don't mind terribly much when random preachers call what I do immoral. I do mind, however, when they stir up their congregations and spend millions of dollars trying to make it illegal. I mind when hate-speech incites people to violence against minorities. That's the sort of thing I would like to curtail. That's hardly unreasonable.

If you don't want that sort of thing to occur, perhaps you should, as a group, try to speak up a little more loudly than those among you who want us dead. If you continue to let them represent you and make laws on your behalf, don't act surprised when we take away their ability to continue interfering in our lives.

In other words, if you don't want to be treated like bigoted, law-mongering zealots whose idea of sharing the gospel is playing marriage-keep-away from the gays, make sure you're louder than those folks.

 

[jimmydiggs]

But the second you try to take away their rights, you are crossing a line.

I'm curious, where does this notion of human rights come from?

 

[contemplative]

I'm curious, where does this notion of human rights come from?

It's discussed in a number of philosophical and religious traditions, if you're really that unfamiliar with it. Some also believe it's self-evident. Others don't think it's necessarily a given, but something we've decided on so that we can live smoothly.

In any case, now is that point where you trot out your old argument, pretending to have an objective morality. It is something you do in far too many threads. When are you going to respond to the arguments against that idea, though?

 

[jimmydiggs]

It's discussed in a number of philosophical and religious traditions, if you're really that unfamiliar with it. Some also believe it's self-evident. Others don't think it's necessarily a given, but something we've decided on so that we can live smoothly.

What makes it so self-evident? If it is something decided, then it's not a right in the way we generally use the word, but rather a desired privaledge. It seems rather absurd to believe we can change the nature of an object or action, by simply "applying" value to it. I.E., Humans are in their basic nature of value, by virtue of being human.

In any case, now is that point where you trot out your old argument, pretending to have an objective morality.

Depends on how you are using the word objective. If you are using it in a scientific sense, I.E. "It is objectively true that harm causes pain." Then I don't know that I am attempting to pretend that harm matters. I am more concerned with the ontology of an action in a moral situation. Is something intrinsically wrong? That's generally the objective morality I "pretend" to have. However, the "have" part is an epistiemic question.

It is something you do in far too many threads.

There's far too many threads where Atheists remain philosphically inconsent.

When are you going to respond to the arguments against that idea, though?

When they're presented, I'll deal with them. So far there is only one that has been presented, which is the Sam Harris approach. Which is just a game of semantics.


The only serious arguement presented against the existance of an objective moral standard, would be an argument against the existance of a theistic god of one nature or another.

 

[contemplative]

What makes it so self-evident?

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing that these arguments are valid. I'm simply saying they exist. Every thread you begin this argument, you seem to forget the history of philosophy and need to be retaught it. They do exist and should be more carefully considered by someone who wants to so quickly lay down the law as you purport to do. You should take them more seriously if you want to be taken seriously.

There's far too many threads where Atheists remain philosphically inconsent.

I'm glad you asserted this here because it brings us to the point you have managed to miss every single time in your prolific career of regurgitating this one argument. There are too many threads where you require someone meet your standards of philosophical consistency. You ignore a great deal of strong philosophical thought that works with the idea of sufficiency.

Why does an atheist need to be philosophically consistent? Why does pragmatism not suffice? You skip this sort of thought and it harms your argument.

When they're presented, I'll deal with them.

In my readings of your responses, you tend to simply ignore them. You uncan the argument and lay it, splat, in the middle of the thread as though it belongs there. I've never seen any flexibility in it. It really does read as though you picked up an apologetics textbook, read this argument and found it compelling, and stopped there.

The only serious arguement presented against the existance of an objective moral standard, would be an argument against the existance of a theistic god of one nature or another.

That's not even wrong. You've not even begun to consider the question if you think that's so. For instance, it may be the case that a god could exist but has enforced no moral standard (which seems much more likely than the idea that a god has). Regardless, there are more general objections, such as the question of our access to the objective moral standard.

 

[TDWP22]

its there burden they carrie not us. they have free will to do whatever they want, we cant forced anyone to do God's will

 

[jimmydiggs]

I'm glad you asserted this here because it brings us to the point you have managed to miss every single time in your prolific career of regurgitating this one argument. There are too many threads where you require someone meet your standards of philosophical consistency. You ignore a great deal of strong philosophical thought that works with the idea of sufficiency.


Why does an atheist need to be philosophically consistent?

I suppose the question could be flipped around. Why does a Christian need to be philosophically consistant?

For example, if I use Plantinga's Free Will Defense in regards to the Problem of Evil, this might solve certain aspects of the Problem of Evil, but can also create new problems in the argument for God's non-existance from the argument from Free Will.

So this would be a defeater.

When an atheist claims that there is no ontologically objective moral law, upon which to differentiate right and wrong actions, but then runs around proclaiming things to be right and wrong, as if there is some kind of ontologically objective standard everyone is to know..... Seems to indicate maybe they don't really believe what they say....

So if you propose that an atheist doesn't have to be philosophically consistant, then I suppose we can expect you to be inconsistent by not allowing a Christian to be philosophically inconsistant?

Why does pragmatism not suffice? You skip this sort of thought and it harms your argument.

I assume you are speaking of the Pragmatic Ethics of people like John Dewey, and William James.

It is very close to just about any other ethical theory offered by atheists, in that it is subjective, relative, and in the end a game of semantics, since it just arbitrarily defines moral ought, by well-being, social desire, etc etc..

The below is a screen-cap from an email exchange between myself and Credo_Ut_Intelligam on the subject of pragmatic ethics. (I'm not exactly college educated yet, so hopefully you don't mind my drawing on other sources and references)

In my readings of your responses, you tend to simply ignore them. You uncan the argument and lay it, splat, in the middle of the thread as though it belongs there. I've never seen any flexibility in it. It really does read as though you picked up an apologetics textbook, read this argument and found it compelling, and stopped there.

Given that the discussions I bring the issue up in, are questions of morality, it would be very relevant. As the question is a bit of an iceburg if you will...

Before we can answer whether or not Action X is morally right/wrong we must first answer various questions. Such as those regarding the ontology of morality. For if we are to reject the existance of an objective moral law, we can't have our non-existant cake and eat it too.

Even if we change what we call an object or an action, it does nothing to change it's essential nature. (Law of Identity) The same would apply to questions of morality, or actions that are relevant to such questions. If we live in an amoral universe, subjective morality is a failure. Simply calling something moral or immoral doesn't change the fact that it's essential nature is painful indifference.

I've not read a single apologetics book. I am however making a list, which I plan to obtain this fall.

That's not even wrong. You've not even begun to consider the question if you think that's so. For instance, it may be the case that a god could exist but has enforced no moral standard (which seems much more likely than the idea that a god has).

Please take note, I stated it would be a theistic God.

The only serious arguement presented against the existance of an objective moral standard, would be an argument against the existance of a theistic god of one nature or another.

When you state that a god could exist, but not enforce/establish a moral standard... This would be a deistic god, and is still argueing against the existance of a theistic god.

Definition of THEISM

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world


Theism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary <--- click

deism=/=theism

Regardless, there are more general objections, such as the question of our access to the objective moral standard.

Ahh, epistimology of morality.

The following would be a start.

Craig presents a fairly basic approach...

deals with the reality of moral values and properties; moral epistemology deals with our knowledge of moral truths. As far as moral epistemology is concerned, I can appeal to all the same mechanisms, such as moral intuition and reflection, by means of which humanist thinkers are confident that they accurate discern the good and the right. In fact, the Bible actually teaches that God's moral law is "written on the hearts" of all men, so that even those who do not know God's law "do naturally the things of hte law" as "their conscioence bears witness to them" (Rom.2.14-15 at). If that is the case, a theist's moral epistemology need not differ broadly from the humanist's own moral epistemology. Epistemological objections are thus red herrings which need not detain us. I'm contending that theism is neccesary that there might be moral goods and duties.
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth ... - Google Books <--- click

I would add on top of that though, that biblical inspiration would be key to this as well. If the bible is inspired(basically men wrote what God said), and is an accurate description of "Morality by Yahweh", then we need not go further than the bible.

I will also add that, if Christ resurrected and we have accurate recordings of what it is he said, and he is indeed "one with the father" then we can draw many more conclusions based on this.

 

[GOD_IS_LOVE]

So called "civil unions" are an offensive attempt to make a "separate but equal" institution of marriage for homosexuals. It is wrong, it is unjust, and it is in violation of everything the United States stands for.

If I am not mistaken, the United States were founded by some people with a strong belief in God, expressly Christians. Going against the principles that helped form this country would seem to be more of a violation to me.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

We should vote against gay marriage because it is wicked! Not too hard to explain. We get to vote! So why not? Christians don't agree with Homosexuals or they are not Christians. When we have the right to say, why not do what is Christian. It's like abortion. It should be illegal. That would mean no one could if they wanted to. They kill people with a soul! You don't have to be born to have a soul! If no one was allowed to marry as homosexual the USA would be more Christian!

 

[contemplative]

When an atheist claims that there is no ontologically objective moral law, upon which to differentiate right and wrong actions, but then runs around proclaiming things to be right and wrong, as if there is some kind of ontologically objective standard everyone is to know..... Seems to indicate maybe they don't really believe what they say....

The difficulty here is that you're choosing to be inflexible in your thinking. Their "right and wrong" is not the same thing a person means when discussing right and wrong in the light of an objective standard. Their rejection of such a standard makes that clear enough.

They're using familiar shorthand for something a whole lot more complicated than "I looked it up in a moral standard." I would apologize for the vagueness if I thought that it weren't your fault for intentionally misunderstanding.

For if we are to reject the existance of an objective moral law, we can't have our non-existant cake and eat it too.

But you can, and in fact must, and even do. I've chosen to take issue with the form (and frequency) of your argument against their forms of morality, but you should keep in mind that the same arguments will eventually be turned against what you portray as an objective system.

It is very close to just about any other ethical theory offered by atheists, in that it is subjective, relative, and in the end a game of semantics, since it just arbitrarily defines moral ought, by well-being, social desire, etc etc..

Truly, you need to explore the etc., etc. At this point I'll go ahead and ask, since you won't stop swinging this particular hammer - would you please demonstrate that your choice of system and the system itself are not subjective and relative?

When you state that a god could exist, but not enforce/establish a moral standard... This would be a deistic god, and is still argueing against the existance of a theistic god.

No. A god could still interact frequently and not enforce a moral standard; a lot of people believe this, even if they don't articulate it well. There are plenty of people walking around who think that god pokes things yet has goals other than moral compliance.

Deistic gods are most commonly defined by their lack of interaction in the physical world (i.e. no interventions, miracles, etc.). Conveniently here, a moral code has become the sine qua non; I'm skeptical you've adopted this definition for any other reason than to try to recover the argument.

You probably should have argued that most manifestations of theistic gods in the history of religion have been involved somehow in moralizing. This would have been more compelling (and less disappointing) than pretending the definition of deism (which notably doesn't necessarily include anything about an objective moral code) was decisive.