Obama's call for gay rights makes history

[zone]

Interpretation: I'm loathe to enter into an intellectual discussion with you so I'll instead offer you several sarcastic one-liners. I get it, zone. I'll just say this much ...NOWHERE in the Bible are you given permission to demean and belittle homosexuals OR your fellow forum members. But I AM open to discussing such scriptures with you if you can present them to me. Maybe I'm wrong so you have the opportunity to make me look stupid in an official capacity with the Bible as your guide. Are you game or do you prefer instead to score cheap points with your unChrist-like slurs?

homosexuality; drunkeness; adultery; lying; idolatry; murder.......etc etc
all called SIN.
sin = transgression of the Law.

the wages of sin is death.

the wrath of God is coming on to all mankind because of SIN.

the only way out is the free gift of Jesus Christ's Sacrifice on our behalf.

i do not care, at all....not one bit....not a tiny bit....none....zero

about your version of why any of those things are cool; acceptable to God; in need of debate.

if you want to trumpet the benefits of murder (or any other sin), go ahead.

i will talk about the forgiveness of sins, in Christ Death.

got it?

 

[KCKID]

homosexuality; drunkeness; adultery; lying; idolatry; murder.......etc etc
all called SIN.
sin = transgression of the Law.

the wages of sin is death.

the wrath of God is coming on to all mankind because of SIN.

the only way out is the free gift of Jesus Christ's Sacrifice on our behalf.

i do not care, at all....not one bit....not a tiny bit....none....zero

about your version of why any of those things are cool; acceptable to God; in need of debate.

if you want to trumpet the benefits of murder (or any other sin), go ahead.

i will talk about the forgiveness of sins, in Christ Death.

got it?

A typical red herring response to cover one's inability to discuss/debate a topic.

I guess 11,762 posts in less than 3 years entitles you to speak to me in a manner that is disrespectful and hardly befitting that of a Christian. It also, evidently, entitles you to receive pats on the back from (admittedly, just a few) others on this forum. Well, I'm about ready to call it a day since I cannot tolerate your brand of Christianity. I am, in fact, appalled by the mocking and the intolerance you've shown toward someone who merely wishes to discuss the scriptures that have driven you and others to such hostility toward gay people.

That said, I'm going to be very deliberate on this because it's important ...as mentioned several times previously, I am a long time follower of Jesus Christ and I am ALSO a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage. I give many kudos to President Obama for his stance on this matter as well as on other issues. Now, do you have God's backing to say that I am not, in fact, a genuine Christian because my position on this matter is poles apart from your position? No cliches, no red herrings, no strawmen, etc. Just a yes or a no and an explanation as to why you arrived at that response.

Thank you.

 

[Batman007]

Ok, let's boil this down even more...

Just out of curiosity, if it doesn't violate any moral law, why does it bother you? And I mean, on a technicality unless a moral law exists they never had the right to marry in the first place, so nobody is taking away anything (unless you're looking at a case like California).

Now, as for the second point: yes, humans are capable of forming their own moral opinions. Person A holds the opinion that homosexual people should have the right to be married; person B's opinion is that homosexuals should be denied the ability to marry. If God does not exist, then both moral opinions are constructs of the human imagination - both "moral compasses" are ultimately man-made.

Without appealing to any objective moral reality, what makes person A's position correct and person B's position incorrect? Saying "nobody should take away free will" is an objective moral proposition that dictates how people ought to act, is it not?

I've already explained this. It bothers me because it says that one type of person is better and therefore deserves more rights than another type of person. And a right doesn't have to be taken away in order for it to be denied.

Person A's position isn't more correct than person B's. I don't think any opinion is better than any other opinion. However, I strongly disagree with preventing someone from having the same right as someone else. That's not equality, that's prejudice.

No, nothing is objective. It's subjective. I really don't understand why you're so obsessed with the terminology I use. I say that gay people should get married, and main thing you guys are picking at is the fact that I have no objective moral compass to compare this to. Why does that matter? It doesn't hinder my opinion. The difference between you and me is I accept that my opinion is only an opinion, and you think that your opinion is fact. I don't think my opinion is fact. I don't think my opinion is better or more correct than yours. They're both opinions. However, your opinion denies a right that you are freely allowed to use and abuse, to others just because their opinion is different from yours.

I'm straight. I never want to marry a woman. Ever. However, I don't care if someone else wants to marry their same gender. It doesn't affect me. Therefore, even if I disagree with their marriage, I'm not going to get involved because it's absolutely none of my business.

 

[Red_Tory]

I've already explained this. It bothers me because it says that one type of person is better and therefore deserves more rights than another type of person. And a right doesn't have to be taken away in order for it to be denied.

Person A's position isn't more correct than person B's. I don't think any opinion is better than any other opinion. However, I strongly disagree with preventing someone from having the same right as someone else. That's not equality, that's prejudice.

No, nothing is objective. It's subjective. I really don't understand why you're so obsessed with the terminology I use. I say that gay people should get married, and main thing you guys are picking at is the fact that I have no objective moral compass to compare this to. Why does that matter? It doesn't hinder my opinion. The difference between you and me is I accept that my opinion is only an opinion, and you think that your opinion is fact. I don't think my opinion is fact. I don't think my opinion is better or more correct than yours. They're both opinions. However, your opinion denies a right that you are freely allowed to use and abuse, to others just because their opinion is different from yours.

For the Person A and Person B conundrum, if they are arranged in such a fashion that one person makes a claim and the other explicitly denies it, then logically one claim must be correct and the other must be incorrect. To lay it out:

Person A: it is the case that gay people should be allowed to marry.
Person B: it is not the case that gay people should be allowed to marry.

When one employs the most basic principle of logic it becomes apparent that only one of the two assertions here can actually be correct. The Law of Non-Contradiction is that "A" and "Not A" cannot both be true. If your opinion is not correct, then Person B's opinion must be correct.


If, in order to escape this, you claim that moral opinions are subjective, then that's where our criticism applies. By stating that there is no moral objectivity, you're essentially stating that moral opinions actually have no rational basis in reality, and is constructed from one's own arbitrary, subjective preferences. It hinders your opinion because without an objective "moral compass" it comes down to one's own personal preference rather than actual reasoning.

Subjectivity imposes a strict limitation on the application of opinions. The moment you say your opinion is "subjective", that means it does not apply outside of your own mind. You say "I think gay people should be able to marry"; this is true, as you do indeed think that. However, when you say it is a subjective opinion as opposed to a claim about objective reality arrived at via moral reasoning, it stops at the boundaries of your own imagined constructs.

 

[Red_Tory]

So in essence, this is how it hinders your cause:

~
The claim "I think gay people should be able to get married" is a subjective one, and it is true insofar as you do indeed think that way.

The claim "Gay people should be able to get married" is completely different. This is an objective moral claim about how everyone ought to behave (i.e. the implicit assumption is about how people should not stop homosexuals from marrying). Therein lies the problem: without an objective moral reality, there is no basis upon which this claim can be made since the concept of the moral "ought" or "should" does not exist. Without a moral reality, any claims made about morality outside of one's mind are automatically false.
~

So in summary you can say "I think that gay people ought to be able to marry" and that will be true, since you define what your thoughts are. The moment, however, you attempt to extend that outside of your mind and say "gay people ought to be able to marry," you make a false statement, as without a moral reality the ideal of the "should" doesn't exist.




Now of course, the problem with regards to homosexual marriage are even greater when this concept of the moral reality is considered. That initial concept of subjective thoughts (i.e. "I think...") is a fundamentally flawed way to approach jurisprudence, as natural law (the legal theory that dominates English-speaking nations such as UK/US/Canada/Australia etc.) is typically concerned with discovering, codifying, and enforcing those principles which already exist within the moral reality (which is called the Law of Nature).

This is ultimately what it comes down to:

By denying the reality of certain moral propositions and saying that it's a subjective issue, you are destroying any potential rational basis upon which a case for gay marriage could be put forward.

 

[Red_Tory]

Your position is that gay people should be allowed to marry (I'm assuming you would want this to apply outside of your mind as well). A hypothetical opponent sets up a direct negation saying that isn't the case.

1) According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, if your position isn't true then its antithesis must be true.

2) In order for your position to be true, there must be an external reality to which it can correspond.

3) There is no moral reality unto which your opinion can correspond.

4) Your position is incorrect.
_______________________________________________
Therefore, your opponent's position is correct.


In standard form:

1. P ∨ ¬P
2. P ↔ Q
3. ¬Q
__________
∴¬P

1. Either A or Not A
2. A if-and-only-if B
3. Not B
4. A is not true*
________________
Therefore Not A is true.

*Technically this isn't needed.

 

[Red_Tory]

At least, I would think that's your position, based on what you've said in previous posts... But as for your final point:

"They're both opinions. However, your opinion denies a right that you are freely allowed to use and abuse, to others just because their opinion is different from yours."

Yes - but to claim that one ought not to do so is an objective moral claim that requires a corresponding reality in order to be true and apply outside of your own mind. Is there something wrong with denying that right to others? How do you - without appeal to an external moral reality - make that judgement and say that I should refrain from certain behaviours?

 

[Felicity]

I don't see gay people as just "neutral innocent folks" who are being "mistreated"...as they seem to want people to think..? In fact I see them as "EXTREMELY BIGOTED" in how they want to destroy the rights of others ,by "pushing" their ways on everyone!!
They WILL NOT AGREE TO JUST "LIVE AND LET LIVE"!!!! MOST of them HATE CHRISTIANS and are heavily invested in denying our rights to believe that "normal sex" is our preference and by God's design! AND they will insist that all of the text books need to be changed for our children to read about "Jane and Jane" and if we don't like it they will throw us in jail! Also, they won't put up with the pledge of allegiance or the word "CHRISTMAS" being spoken in our schools, as these things reflect our beliefs, which they have no "TOLERANCE" for...? EXCUSE ME? Isn't this the epitomy of hypocrisy? I think that the true meaning of "GAY BULLYING" IS GAYS BULLYING!!! Further more, I have never heard of a Chriatian who wouldn't love a gay person...?(which is another big MYTH!) Every Christian I have ever known of "tolerates" and loves them...as I have done with the ones that I have known, personally!!! (whether we happen to agree or not) We "live and let live" with them"!! THEY ARE NOT THE ONES BEING ABUSED BY US!....... IT IS BY FAR THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!

 

[Nautilus]

alright after that tirade im done. this is just getting ridiculous.

 

[SpudLove]

Homosexuality is a sin. I beleive we keep the bible in context, and not try to find work arounds to benefit ourselfs.

 

[Batman007]

Wow.

Bahahaha, are you serious! You're completely making things up, ignoring everything I say. You're inventing your own form of logic and "math" in order to prove... I'm not even sure what. That any opinion I have doesn't matter because my opinions aren't objective (which, by the way, nobody's are)? You put up several posts restating the same mixed up, weird logic over and over in slightly different ways. I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

Let me just say this and hopefully we can be done with this really weird debate. I, personally, value the fact that I can get married. I enjoy this. I think it's a great thing. I don't like the fact that two consenting adults are denied the right to marry, that they can't enjoy the same thing I can in this great country. Their marriage is not harming me. Their marriage in no way effects me. Because their marriage is their business and doesn't affect me, I see no reason why there should be laws denying them of this. Therefore, I am going to try and change those laws so that those two people can enjoy the great thing called marriage.

I believe all people are equal and should be granted equal opportunities.

This is a matter of opinion. My opinion is the laws should reflect equality.

 

[psychomom]

Wow.

Bahahaha, are you serious! You're completely making things up, ignoring everything I say. You're inventing your own form of logic and "math" in order to prove... I'm not even sure what. That any opinion I have doesn't matter because my opinions aren't objective (which, by the way, nobody's are)? You put up several posts restating the same mixed up, weird logic over and over in slightly different ways. I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

Let me just say this and hopefully we can be done with this really weird debate. I, personally, value the fact that I can get married. I enjoy this. I think it's a great thing. I don't like the fact that two consenting adults are denied the right to marry, that they can't enjoy the same thing I can in this great country. Their marriage is not harming me. Their marriage in no way effects me. Because their marriage is their business and doesn't affect me, I see no reason why there should be laws denying them of this. Therefore, I am going to try and change those laws so that those two people can enjoy the great thing called marriage.

I believe all people are equal and should be granted equal opportunities.

This is a matter of opinion. My opinion is the laws should reflect equality.

Actually, Red_Tory's logic, as classical logic goes, is pretty flawless.
(applause to you, R_T )

It's something that used to be studied by all serious students, long, long ago, and is almost never studied anymore
outside of a maths classroom or, if you're lucky [blessed], there's a good class at your (even liberal arts) college.
It may seem meaningless to you, which is understandable since you're at an age where you've not yet even been to college.

Now, please don't see anything demeaning in my last statement. We ALL were once at that age, and there's not a thing in the world wrong with it.

Does it help to clarify if I were to say that you believe certain things, id est, gay marriage should be allowed; gay marriage hurts/affects no one; and especially, "all people are equal and should be granted equal opportunities." (lets's come back to that last one in a bit)

Okay, now that we've stated your beliefs, I'll state mine. Gay marriage should not be allowed; gay marriage does, indeed hurt and affect others outside of itself; ALL people should most definitely NOT be allowed equal opportunities.

Right, so here we are; we've declared our opinions, and they are diametrically opposed to each other.
We are at point non plus--a standoff, if you will.
How shall we decide which of our opinions (for opinions they both are) is valid?
Which reflects the truth?

There has to be a standard, other than, 'well, my teacher said' or 'my neighbor said', right, since those are both opinions, too.
How do we resolve this conflict?

And btw--you want to be careful with the last thing I quoted you saying.

"I believe all people are equal and should be granted equal opportunities."

All people? Really? What about murderers? Are they included in 'all people'?
Or child molesters? Or thieves? Or bullies? Or some of those folks who work in nursing homes and neglect the residents?
All people? The same opportunities as anyone?

Thanks for listening,
ellie

 

[KCKID]

I don't see gay people as just "neutral innocent folks" who are being "mistreated"...as they seem to want people to think..? In fact I see them as "EXTREMELY BIGOTED" in how they want to destroy the rights of others ,by "pushing" their ways on everyone!!

Do you get so hot under the collar when people divorce and remarry and families are often destroyed as a result of parental infidelity? No? I bet you don't! And yet, while Jesus NEVER SAID A WORD about homosexuality, He was VERY CLEAR as to how divorce/remarriage results in biblical adultery and is, according to God's law, a major sin punishable by death! Didn't know that? Well, now you do. Moreover, most Christians turn a blind eye to this sin because they're too busy targetting homosexuals!!

They WILL NOT AGREE TO JUST "LIVE AND LET LIVE"!!!! MOST of them HATE CHRISTIANS and are heavily invested in denying our rights to believe that "normal sex" is our preference and by God's design! AND they will insist that all of the text books need to be changed for our children to read about "Jane and Jane" and if we don't like it they will throw us in jail! Also, they won't put up with the pledge of allegiance or the word "CHRISTMAS" being spoken in our schools, as these things reflect our beliefs, which they have no "TOLERANCE" for...? EXCUSE ME? Isn't this the epitomy of hypocrisy? I think that the true meaning of "GAY BULLYING" IS GAYS BULLYING!!! Further more, I have never heard of a Chriatian who wouldn't love a gay person...?(which is another big MYTH!) Every Christian I have ever known of "tolerates" and loves them...as I have done with the ones that I have known, personally!!! (whether we happen to agree or not) We "live and let live" with them"!! THEY ARE NOT THE ONES BEING ABUSED BY US!....... IT IS BY FAR THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!

Nice rant. Feel better now?

 

[Red_Tory]

Wow.

Bahahaha, are you serious! You're completely making things up, ignoring everything I say. You're inventing your own form of logic and "math" in order to prove... I'm not even sure what.
This is a matter of opinion. My opinion is the laws should reflect equality.

And this is the point of the criticism... You're being irrational and not thinking in a logical fashion. You haven't given a rational answer to the question of why the law should reflect equality - and you can't unless you appeal to an objective moral standard.


You can say "I don't like X", but that's where your argument ends - actually, it isn't even an argument to begin with. The problem with postmodern and liberal thoughts about subjectivism is just that; you abandon logical analysis in favour of your emotions, and the primacy of feelings is asserted over rational theories of law.


Ultimately if you don't have an actual moral reality to appeal to all you're essentially saying is "laws should reflect my arbitrary, subjective preferences and not jimmydigg's Red_Tory's", and we are saying in turn that this is a patently irrational basis for jurisprudence and sound, reasonable decision-making.

If you are incapable of providing any supporting argument for why your personal preferences should be codified into law other than "I don't like fact X", then there really wasn't a debate in the first place... In accordance with the logical proof I offered above (which isn't "my own logic" - brush up on critical thinking skills), your opponent's position is correct and yours is incorrect.

 

[Red_Tory]

Do you get so hot under the collar when people divorce and remarry and families are often destroyed as a result of parental infidelity? No? I bet you don't! And yet, while Jesus NEVER SAID A WORD about homosexuality, He was VERY CLEAR as to how divorce/remarriage results in biblical adultery and is, according to God's law, a major sin punishable by death! Didn't know that? Well, now you do. Moreover, most Christians turn a blind eye to this sin because they're too busy targetting homosexuals!!



Nice rant. Feel better now?

I would contend that Jesus' statement on divorce in Matthew 19 can be a rather substantial indicator about what his stance on gay marriage would have been.

But you're right, there should be a far greater emphasis on divorce.

 

[KCKID]

Homosexuality is a sin.

Being human is a sin in God's eyes. God expects perfection and I'm wondering if you are qualified to determine who is and who is not perfect. Are you? If not, you're a sinner. Welcome to the world of humans!

I beleive we keep the bible in context,

Hey, that's what I've been trying to do since I signed up. Are you game to explore the Bible in context with me?

and not try to find work arounds to benefit ourselfs.

Hmmm . . .that was too deep for me. Anyways, how about we get serious about Bible context?

 

[Red_Tory]

Wow.

in order to prove... I'm not even sure what. That any opinion I have doesn't matter because my opinions aren't objective (which, by the way, nobody's are)?

Oh, I should address this as clearly as possible. In simple terms it's that unless your opinion has a basis in reality (which, again, is the criticism we're mounting - that your opinion does not reflect reality due to the fact that you claim there is no reality to reflect) it does not constitute law by which we all ought to abide.

You think the law should reflect equality? Ok, let's hear an actual argument in favour of this beyond your mere assertion that you don't like having it any other way - and make it without recourse to any real moral value.

At this point, all you've got is "I like X, therefore X should be protected and promoted by the law" - an utterly bogus and ad hoc basis for making law.

 

[zone]

11,762 posts in less than 3 years entitles you to speak to me in a manner that is disrespectful and hardly befitting that of a Christian.

because you are playing games with what God has said, you are not entitled to tell me what is befitting of a Christian.
i doubt you are one.

 

[KCKID]

because you are playing games with what God has said,

Feel free to present to me any examples where I've 'played games' with what God has said.

you are not entitled to tell me what is befitting of a Christian

Okay.

i doubt you are one.

Playing it safe, eh? That's okay. I don't need to pass muster with you.

 

[zone]

Feel free to present to me any examples where I've 'played games' with what God has said.

just go ahead and lay it out!

take all the time you need, show us how God didn't really mean homosexuality is sodomy, or condemned, or particularly abominable to Him, or that unless repented of it won't be punished, or all the other mystery claims you've been making.

just do it!
prove your claims!