biology, not your subjective "feelings"

[Lon]

Personally, I wish you no ill-will.

Really?

I couldn't agree more, now deal with them.

Do you ever deal in reality?

But you do seem hostile to any challenge regarding your world-view.

Of course I am. Does that mean hostile to you? :nono: Ephesians 6:12

Spiritual insecurity's not an endearing quality.

I know, look in the mirror. Who has a Houseman quote about mine? I absolutely don't have one about yours.

Let me give you an opportunity today: Do you have a soul? I mean, are you more than the sum of your parts? If not, ending your life is not really any big deal, nothing at all. If yes, then you believe in all the things that point to a god existing. You believe in something greater than yourself. One makes you a human being. The other makes you a nothing. You assume the posture of a nothing and worse: A selfish egocentric nothing with no purpose for even your egocentrism. You'd be nothing but an animal. A thing. A blip. A nothing. Are you a nothing? Be honest with yourself. There is 'obviously' a god, even for you. You are lying to yourself to NOT have to answer to him or talk to him. Don't believe me? You are lying. It is obvious.

 

[quip]

Really?

Yes really. How would I benefit from wishing harm upon you. Unfortunately your spiritual tenents cannot claim reciprocation without ideological submission. A fundamental flaw of non-acceptance and lack of compassion.

Do you ever deal in reality?

Certainly...its an absurd business at times. Likewise, do you face reality or hide behind tenents of a culturally popular ideology?

Of course I am. Does that mean hostile to you? :nono: Ephesians 6:12

Does being hostile mean hostile to me?! Well, of course. It also indicates fear from you.

I know, look in the mirror. Who has a Houseman quote about mine? I absolutely don't have one about yours.

Sure you do....you've an entire sacred book to choose them from. You just gave me an excerpt above.

Let me give you an opportunity today: Do you have a soul? I mean, are you more than the sum of your parts? If not, ending your life is not really any big deal, nothing at all.

Sure there is. Have you read any existential philosophy?

If yes, then you believe in all the things that point to a god existing. You believe in something greater than yourself. One makes you a human being. The other makes you a nothing. You assume the posture of a nothing and worse: A selfish egocentric nothing with no purpose for even your egocentrism. You'd be nothing but an animal. A thing. A blip. A nothing. Are you a nothing? Be honest with yourself. There is 'obviously' a god, even for you. You are lying to yourself to NOT have to answer to him or talk to him. Don't believe me? You are lying. It is obvious.

This suspiciously reads like projection. You simply feel the need of an external guiding force lest you become a nothingness. A persistent existential angst with a conscious and fruitless desire to hide from it.

All I can advise is that its an illusion. All that you spiritually require was granted to you at birth. Drop the fear and rejoice upon yourself...you are IT. So is everyone else....its a humbling experience!

 

[Selaphiel]

Perhaps a similar questioning of smoking related to cancer would give some pause for confusion, but there is no denying whatsoever that smoking is a dangerous behavior. When the numbers are exponential to the degree we are talking about, we are only talking about fractions of errors in the wiggle room. There is no way to ever refute numbers. They are what they are just like all math. It can't be fudged or faked. Sometimes reporting can do that, but we have government stats here. They are 'trying' to report accurate findings. -Lon

The difference is that we know that smoking causes damage to the body, qua smoking. We know why it is causing it as well. The correlation would not be enough, since it could be other factors contributing heavily to that correlation. See the "not shaving and coronary disease" example. I've offered such other explanations for high HIV/AIDS rates in homosexual men, and those factors are not an inherent part of homosexuality. So if the disease rates are the concern, I should be advocating against promiscuity and for usage of condoms for homosexuals, not advocate against homosexuality as such.

 

[glassjester]

We can debate the merits or lack thereof of each, in turn when or if such is being proposed....that is if you're not being rhetorical.

Nope, I rarely ever am (being rhetorical).

A more pertinent question would be by what practical necessity does one preclude same-sex marriage?

I think that might be backwards. Why should the state support it (so-called gay marriage)? Government has a definite interest in legally supporting and even regulating heterosexual marriage - as that is the means by which its new citizens are created and best cared for.

 

[quip]

Nope, I rarely ever am (being rhetorical).




I think that might be backwards. Why should the state support it (so-called gay marriage)? Government has a definite interest in legally supporting and even regulating heterosexual marriage - as that is the means by which its new citizens are created and best cared for.

Implied in this position is that homosexual marriages are somehow a threat to society thus, the government's compelling interest toward proscription.

This simply brings my question about full circle: By what practical necessity must the government be compelled to act as such?

 

[glassjester]

Implied in this position is that homosexual marriages are somehow a threat to society thus, the government's compelling interest toward proscription.

This simply brings my question about full circle: By what practical necessity must the government be compelled to act as such?

I think the threat is the loss of any meaning or value of legal marriage.

What's the state's interest in marriage to begin with?

 

[serpentdove]

What's the state's interest in marriage to begin with?

:dizzy: Jer 16:2, Heb 13:4

"What is honored in a country is cultivated there." ~ Plato, Republic

See:

Supreme Court Marriage

 

[glassjester]

"What is honored in a country is cultivated there." ~ Plato, Republic

Of course. Is there a reason that the state would wish to cultivate marriage?

 

[quip]

I think the threat is the loss of any meaning or value of legal marriage.

What's the state's interest in marriage to begin with?

Or alternatively, an appreciable increase in the value of legal marriage by way of equality/inclusion

Not sure of the state's roll...you brought up.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Hello, Angel4Truth - If there was a cure for aids, would homosexuality suddenly become less wrong?

Nope. There was other demonstrable harm (quips criteria for what is wrong) offered even by quip (promiscuity)

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think the threat is the loss of any meaning or value of legal marriage.

What's the state's interest in marriage to begin with?

To keep from paying tax benefits.

 

[glassjester]

Or alternatively, an appreciable increase in the value of legal marriage by way of equality/inclusion

Not sure of the state's roll...you brought up.

The state, as in the government. Why should marriage be governed?

I think we risk losing all meaning of marriage if it's applicable to any people who "love" each other.

 

[glassjester]

Nope. There was other demonstrable harm (quips criteria for what is wrong) offered even by quip (promiscuity)

I think the harm is in the undermining of marriage as a legal institution.

Selaphiel is correct in pointing out that AIDS and promiscuity are not evidence of the harmfulness of homosexuality, per se. Rather they are evidence of the harm of AIDS and promiscuity.

Additionally, it's not the so-called "married" homosexuals (of which there are hardly any) that are causing this harm.

 

[glassjester]

To keep from paying tax benefits.

I believe the state's interest in marriage is the producing of and caring for children - the state's new citizens.

Why else should marriage have any legal standing at all?

 

[serpentdove]

I believe the state's interest in marriage is the producing of and caring for children ...

A man and a woman :straight: make a family (Gen. 2:18–24) :listen: with or without children (Heb 13:4). :dizzy:

 

[glassjester]

A man and a woman :straight: make a family :listen: (Gen. 2:18–24) with or without children (Heb 13:4). :dizzy:

That's nice.

But why should the government regulate, cultivate, or incentivize that type of relationship among its citizens?

 

[serpentdove]

[A man and a woman make a family (Gen. 2:18–24) with or without children (Heb 13:4).] That's nice.

Don't be surprised if those words come up again at the Great White Throne (Heb 13:4, Re 20:11). opcorn:

 

[Crucible]

Marriage is not just a sentiment, it's a social necessity that must be governed by laws and tenets. It's been that way for thousands of years, even outside of Abrahamic religion, because you can't have a functioning society that does not acknowledge such an institution.

 

[glassjester]

Don't be surprised if those words come up again at the Great White Throne (Heb 13:4, Re 20:11). opcorn:

As much as you might hate to admit it, you and I are on the same side of this issue. If you're looking for an argument, you've come to the wrong person.

 

[glassjester]

Marriage is not just a sentiment, it's a social necessity that must be enforced by a legal system. It is something that has been in government for thousands of years, you can't just do away with it.

Yes.

And what makes it so necessary?