Challenge to those against Gay Marriage

[Tpolg]

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

Another point to keep in mind is that since the "tradition" arguement is lousy, and the idea of societal breakdown has no credible evidence, one is left with the "Bible says so" argument.

Since Bush wants to amend the constitution based on this "Bible says so" type of argument to apease the Christian right, what happened to separation of church and state? When did the US become a theocracy?

The US should not be any type of theocracy, particularly theocracy of the state which is the worst kind.

[Fallen]

Before I reply in full to this extremely controversial issue I would like to state that the homosexual is the same as everyone else, under sin, and therefore should be loved just like everyone else. They are acceptable as a person for who they are, God's creation, yet it is their sin that is what is the issue here.

The fact that they want to keep doing this sin is the point of contention.

The argument that pitchforkpat put forward that we shouldn't outlaw the marriages just because "the Bible says so" is illogical. We, as humans in a sinful state, need absolutes, we need boundaries. If we don't have a definition of right or wrong then anything goes. One day it may be acceptable to be a paedophile or a rapist; and just because the Bible says that this is wrong then it should be ignored.

We hear the excuse from homosexuals that they are the way they are because they either have supposedly "inherited the homosexual gene" from their heterosexual parents or they didn't get enough love from their father as a child. These are all just ways to try and tell us that "we don't have a choice about what we do, it is preprogrammed into us". A useless excuse for the fact that we all have choices and whether we like it or not we will be judged upon those choices. The excuses that say we have no choice or Satan made us do it will not be accepted at Judgment Day.

[Tpolg]

Well that is all well and good, but if we are to base our government boundaries on the Bible, why not the Koran, or any other writing some one clames is inspiered by God?

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by Tpolg

Well that is all well and good, but if we are to base our government boundaries on the Bible, why not the Koran, or any other writing some one clames is inspired by God?

The question is are any of these books actually inspired by God? Do your research, everything is easily accessible on all the major religions. I
found that they claim inspiration yet they are only one way religions. We have to try and do works to reach God or Heaven with no guarantee of salvation or from going to Hell, yet the only religion that has God reaching to man in Love is Christianity. It is not by works that we reach him lest some should boast.

We are all given the same opportunity and it doesn't matter what we do. but when we believe we are to stop the sinful nature and desires of our hearts.

[icest0rm]

Originally Posted by Fallen

The fact that they want to keep doing this sin is the point of contention.

That's the root problem for fundamentalists isn't it?

A homosexual act is not a sin. There is nothing inherently bad about homosexual sex. It's irrelevant what the Bible or what any book says. What's important to answer is, does homosexuality in itself hurt anybody? The answer is no.

[Tpolg]

Originally Posted by Fallen

The question is are any of these books actually inspired by God? Do your research, everything is easily accessible on all the major religions. I
found that they claim inspiration yet they are only one way religions. We have to try and do works to reach God or Heaven with no guarantee of salvation or from going to Hell, yet the only religion that has God reaching to man in Love is Christianity. It is not by works that we reach him lest some should boast.

We are all given the same opportunity and it doesn't matter what we do. but when we believe we are to stop the sinful nature and desires of our hearts.

Well if you want to talk TULIP we should go to the religion forum.

However, the fact that Christianity is the supreme theological understanding, dos not make it an appropriate bases for civil government. Ever man is a sinner, therefor only proposition that can be independently verified are legitimate for the exclusive use of force.

I am Tpolg and I approve of this message.

[Soichirou]

Originally Posted by Fallen

Before I reply in full to this extremely controversial issue I would like to state that the homosexual is the same as everyone else, under sin, and therefore should be loved just like everyone else. They are acceptable as a person for who they are, God's creation, yet it is their sin that is what is the issue here.

The fact that they want to keep doing this sin is the point of contention.

The argument that pitchforkpat put forward that we shouldn't outlaw the marriages just because "the Bible says so" is illogical. We, as humans in a sinful state, need absolutes, we need boundaries. If we don't have a definition of right or wrong then anything goes. One day it may be acceptable to be a paedophile or a rapist; and just because the Bible says that this is wrong then it should be ignored.

We hear the excuse from homosexuals that they are the way they are because they either have supposedly "inherited the homosexual gene" from their heterosexual parents or they didn't get enough love from their father as a child. These are all just ways to try and tell us that "we don't have a choice about what we do, it is preprogrammed into us". A useless excuse for the fact that we all have choices and whether we like it or not we will be judged upon those choices. The excuses that say we have no choice or Satan made us do it will not be accepted at Judgment Day.

You told us here that it's okay if we outlaw gay marriages becasue "the Bible says so." Tell me if I get something wrong here.
1. God follows no logic
2. The Bible are the teachings of this illogical figure

Does this not mean that the Bible is inherently illogical? If so, why is pitchforkpat's argument false?

Peace out.

[Pitchforkpat]

Fallen,

You have two problems here with your responses in this thread.

1)

I put forward a simple concise argument which you failed to even address, far less rebutt. I'll say it again. There is no rational argument against gay marriages other than "the Bible says so". One of the most important elements of the constitution is the seperation of church and state. It's what allows Americans of all faiths to live together in wonderful peace and harmony. Now do you, or don't you believe in the constitution?

2)

It was asked of you why we shouldn't follow the Koran instead. You mumbled something about the Bible being "inspired" as if you could prove that IT was and the other holly books were not. If the Bible is truly inspired, and therefore the one true holly book, then it must be without error. Correct? Please tell me if I'm wrong in that. If you believe it to be inspired and without error, then I will point out errors to you like I have done with others. It's not hard.

Now, please address these two points, if you have the balls.

[jademunky]

Originally Posted by Fallen

The argument that pitchforkpat put forward that we shouldn't outlaw the marriages just because "the Bible says so" is illogical. We, as humans in a sinful state, need absolutes, we need boundaries. If we don't have a definition of right or wrong then anything goes. One day it may be acceptable to be a paedophile or a rapist

Gotta keep the masses in line eh?
Dunno man, that your willing to trade so much of your freedom away for so little is just frightening. That your willing to do the same with everyone else's freedom is even more so.

[frish]

Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at University of California at Riverside wrote a book called "Sexual Selections: What we can and can't learn about sex from animals" wrote about animal sexuality in the Los Angeles Times opinion section (Sunday March 7, 2004, page M3).

Over 450 species of animals have been observed as practicing homosexuality, some with long term relationships!

Does that sound like a choice, or something innate? Hmmm

People can surpress behavior to some degree, that's free will and determination etc. However, if homosexuality is born, not nurtured, seems a lot of arguments banning it, and marriage, go away.

[Tpolg]

Originally Posted by frish

Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at University of California at Riverside wrote a book called "Sexual Selections: What we can and can't learn about sex from animals" wrote about animal sexuality in the Los Angeles Times opinion section (Sunday March 7, 2004, page M3).

Over 450 species of animals have been observed as practicing homosexuality, some with long term relationships!

Does that sound like a choice, or something innate? Hmmm

People can surpress behavior to some degree, that's free will and determination etc. However, if homosexuality is born, not nurtured, seems a lot of arguments banning it, and marriage, go away.

True, and if we base human law on what other animal species do, we should do away with pretty much all of our laws.

[tachyon]

How bout this: get government out of the marriage business.

If people want to enter contracts for exclusive sexual activity with each other, and sharing of economic resources, etc, they should be free to do so. The govt has no real interest in sanctioning or forbidding such agreements.

Of course, I don't think the govt should be running schools, post offices, and health care systems, either.

[Tpolg]

Originally Posted by tachyon

How bout this: get government out of the marriage business.

If people want to enter contracts for exclusive sexual activity with each other, and sharing of economic resources, etc, they should be free to do so. The govt has no real interest in sanctioning or forbidding such agreements.

Of course, I don't think the govt should be running schools, post offices, and health care systems, either.

I hardily agree, although procreation is to an extent a common matter.

[whitebear]

Count me in, Tachyon. I share many of your Libertarian views.

Pitchforkpat, you are duelling with a guy who "believes". Which is intellectual shorthand for, "Logic? We don' need no stinkin' logic!" He has faith, and that substitutes in any logical equation for "proof". Faults in the bible are explained away by Christians as being in the "Old" Testament which was "replaced" by the New (and infinitely superior) Testament. Alternately, faults are explained away as "things which only appear to be mistakes due to our limited ability to understand". Somehow this is supposed to rationalize stories such as Elijah and the bears--wherein the great prophet Elijah curses 42 children who taunted him, and God sends bears to kill the kids? Both the Bible and the Quran, correct me if I'm wrong, allows for the stoning to death of any WOMAN who commits adultery. I get so tired of people who don't even TRY to think for themselves (and by that I mean virtually everyone who follows an "organized" religious belief).

IMHO: We shouldn't follow the Koran (or the Bible) because both are based on the fallacy "because God/Allah says so" (even though both books contain some good moral laws) and both books are open to interpretation by whatever self-appointed leader claims to be spouting God's truth. Religion isn't the opiate of the masses, it's the pablum of the masses.

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by whitebear

I get so tired of people who don't even TRY to think for themselves (and by that I mean virtually everyone who follows an "organized" religious belief).

Whitebear, I do think for myself. I may attend church every week and listen to sermons from my pastor but he doesn't expect me to take everything he says as Gospel, I'm charged to test what has been said against what I know to be true.

Plus, while I am part of an organised religion, I am not dictated to by that religion. My life is based on Jesus and the Bible, not the edicts of a particular denomination of Christianity. I was given the choice to either believe or shun Him, and after serious thought I have chosen to believe. No one forced it upon me.