Mr.Razorblades
New member
Look, it's called life and it is unbiased.
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Look, it's called life and it is unbiased.
Just as you can't be biased on who you sell a house too, you shouldn't be biased by their sexual orientation.
That happens today. It should be equal standards. It is not. Although you are right, it is possible, but way more hoops and issues.
I do not compare the murder of innocents to a legal contract between consenting adults.
I have, in the past, stated that I am not particularly ecumenical and I don't cross over and against that which I hold dear.
Most certainly what ever is within my power to do to protect life I would do.
I answer only to God for my words, thoughts and deeds. I believe others do likewise, or not, as the case may be.
But you and I both must answer to the secular government based
on its laws which ought to apply equally to us all.
My first option is the government not defining marriage. However, if they do, I'm ok with gay marriage.
Quincy
New member
I agree, I think any two people regardless of orientation should be allowed to marry. They can perform all the norms of a traditional family except for procreation. Given that they should be allowed to adopt a child than that fixes that issue. I'd rather a child be with two loving same sex parents than in the system.
There will be equal standards one day soon, you just have to give it time. When more people come to value reason over tradition.
El DLo
New member
At the end of the day, it's purely black and white. The religious right tries to invent a gray area, but there really isn't, nor should there be.
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. This is a fact. That being said, there's no conceivable secular reason to oppose same sex marriage on a purely political level. You can rant about the traditional family and the values America was founded on, but none of them are effected in the slightest by the existence of same-sex marriage.
No matter how much you may protest, an opposition to same-sex marriage on a legal level is pure unadulterated bigotry in every sense of the word, and inventing your own definitions of bigotry doesn't make that any less true.
If you don't want to support same-sex marriage, then be my guest. But don't deny people rights. If a clergyman doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, then that is THEIR RIGHT. Nobody cares to force clergy to perform ceremonies that go against their beliefs. All that is asked is that the plethora of clergy who are willing to (or the complete absence of clergy altogether), be permitted to proceed without legal opposition, and given the nature of the constitution, there shouldn't be any opposition.
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. This is a fact. That being said, there's no conceivable secular reason to oppose same sex marriage on a purely political level. You can rant about the traditional family and the values America was founded on, but none of them are effected in the slightest by the existence of same-sex marriage.
No matter how much you may protest, an opposition to same-sex marriage on a legal level is pure unadulterated bigotry in every sense of the word, and inventing your own definitions of bigotry doesn't make that any less true.
If you don't want to support same-sex marriage, then be my guest. But don't deny people rights. If a clergyman doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, then that is THEIR RIGHT. Nobody cares to force clergy to perform ceremonies that go against their beliefs. All that is asked is that the plethora of clergy who are willing to (or the complete absence of clergy altogether), be permitted to proceed without legal opposition, and given the nature of the constitution, there shouldn't be any opposition.
And how would YOU know about that. I've seen the logic you've used so far. :|
Logic.
Natural law.
Something that occurs in nature.
Gay dogs, gay penguins, gay birds, gay horses, etc... while it's hard to poll the animal kingdom, we see examples that they experience about the same percentage of homosexual behavior we, as humans do.
Homosexual behaviour IS WITHIN natural law by the meaning of the words.
Now shut the front door!
Maybe you should read my answer a bit more thoroughly, because I set that out. I don't believe in interference with contract to force a legal inequity on parties. What justification would you present in restricting that particular contract that didn't amount to an attempt to enforce your religious views, divorced from a secular justification in terms of harmful consequence and impact?
Absent that secular argument against state interest there's no real legs to it. You might think women shouldn't vote or be allowed to run for office based on your religious views and I'd say the very same thing to you.
:e4e:
The law moses received applied to the Jews only. Gentiles were under a different covenant.
The COMMANDMENTS may or may not have been meant for all, you can debate it either way, but let's assume it is for all but only of the all, those that chose to follow God. Homosexuality isn't a sin in the ten commandments.
And hating, campaigning against, marching against, legislating against a group that doesn't believe as you do, turns GOD into a terrorist, and is NOT how HE taught to behave.
Any other questions?
it is our job to add a little bias that makes sense
I used to be an 'each to his own' kind of thinker. If the person wasn't bothering me or others he could do what he wanted including marrying his cat. I used to fiercely defend people's 'rights' to be stupid. That was in the days when America was giving the homosexuals an inch. Then I went to college. I minored in medical science. One of the topics covered was the medical consequences of homosexual sex. Without going into the nauseating details, I will tell you that it is self destructive. Strike one. Then they took whole foot in the 1990's with the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. Someone with a self destructive behavior like this does not belong in the armed services. It can be discovered on a physical. Strike two. Now congress at the behest the homosexual lobby is pushing hate crimes legislation. One of the chief aims of this legislation is protecting this dysfunctional behavior. It even makes speaking out against this behavior a crime in some instances (hate speech). Strike three. There are more strikes now with open homosexuals now in the armed services. America should not have made sodomy, including homosexuality, let alone homosexual marriage legal. Now the entire culture has become blind to this destructive behavior.
Now I will exit this thread. I don't like to dwell on this topic. :vomit:
Now I will exit this thread. I don't like to dwell on this topic. :vomit:
I will be in orange below, Selaphiel will be in blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selaphiel
I do not agree. Europe and US are secular pluralistic societies, the opinions of any church or any other religion have no special influence on the laws in such a society, nor should they.
But the opinions of the constituents do and should, which is the point. It's also unfortunate that you consider God's Word opinion.
In European countries, you could get votes to burn down the churches, and remove the hateful Xian community. Should they do it? Their constituents hold a clear majority that wants to. :| The problem with your comment is this. If the constituents were actually followers of what Christ taught, instead of legislating things, they would be spending their time getting to know and understand the PEOPLE.
The faith was made to operate from a people level, not a legislative level.
How the hell do you think PAUL felt when the govt came and beheaded him? Do you think he argued how the govt should behave? NOPE. He died.
He taught to do what they govt says to do because they are God appointed. God uses the govt for bad things too, it's not the theocratic millenial reignt. The arrogance and Hubris it takes to suggest the govt should legislate how Xians want, is why I can't be associated with that non meaning word.
The apostles did not appeal to the govt to change the laws, they went to the people to get them to change. You guys are whack.
Quote:
I suspect I do hold to a more liberal conception of Christianity and the Bible than you do. I think those texts can be questioned and that Christianity can change and I don't necessarily think that a changing Christianity is something new, it has changed in many ways many times. Even the sacred texts change, there is progression of thought within scripture itself.
I disagree and I consider it problematic that someone could go through seminary and come out thinking that homosexuality is fine and dandy.
If the seminary reads the bible, it will follow it's teaching and teach being homosexual is fine and dandy, that isn't the sin, according TO SAID BIBLE!
Quote:
Abortion and murder can be argued against on a secular basis.
Incidentally, so can the corruption of marriage. That is precisely why marriage has remained pure for our entire history. God's command is just common sense.
We know through history there were gay couples that were treated as the married couples were. Which pure history do you refer to? The History within the Church? GOOD, keep it in the Church, stop trying to impose it legally on unbelievers. }:|
But let's be honest, people can give perfectly logical rebuttals of your arguments against murder and abortion. Morality doesn't map perfectly to logicality. Every moral judgment enforced by the law is precisely what you claim can't exist because of SoCaS. You think general moral intuition is a sound basis for law, but not religion? It falls apart all over.
Before moses laws were written, nearly the same laws were published hundreds/thousands of years before by a non "GOD" fearing faith. :| If those laws were ONLY valid because GOD gave them to moses, then the guy before moses must have been a prodigy.
Quote:
In the end the question is not whether the churches or other religions should marry homosexuals, but whether the secular state that represents a pluralistic secular society can do it.
DING DING DING number one answer, and it follows scripture!!!!
In the end it is a vote and we hope those voting for the moral option outweigh the others.
Translation: We hope enough people agree with us, we can impose our faith on those not in our faith.
The same goes for murder and abortion.
The same goes for when you look at a woman(or man) in lust, throw your a$$ in jail. Immoral thing you.
The problem here is that you seem to be voting for the immoral option for some very odd reason.
No, the problem is, you seem to think you are the arbiter of morality, and I am not sure GOD gives out those licenses yet. His son, the King of Kings, Prince of Peace, High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, said he couldn't judge man on earth, but if he did say something judgemental he only repeated what God told Him. And God spoke to Him in the first person. Do you make that claim? Jesus didn't legislate against His enemies. He said to love them as perfectly as His father loved them, and to provide and serve them.
DEAL WITH IT, your moral claim, is a justification for bigotry. I'm not calling you names, that is the word for the behavior.
Oh, why didn't you just say you were patterning your mind after a black hole and save me the time and trouble.
:shocked:
lain: :chuckle:Else, it's in there. :thumb: Since I know you love works, consider the work you'll do a virtue.
Is that why you avoid it?
Marriage was a secular institution before Moses ever was a twinkle in His padre's eye.
assuranceagent
New member
Oh, why didn't you just say you were patterning your mind after a black hole and save me the time and trouble.
:shocked:
Else, it's in there. :thumb: Since I know you love works, consider the work you'll do a virtue.
Some things go without saying.
lain:
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Right: because only men are gay, and there's only one thing that gay people do in private. Moreover, this is an exclusively homosexual activity (and one that homophobes seem to obsess over). Seriously...you need to get over yourself.
Question for those who are homophobes or even support it being punished by death: why wouldn't you want to put gay people in harm's way?
Not a fan of this PC-run-amok nonsense myself.
And to say you don't dwell on this topic is a bald-faced and ridiculous lie.:rotfl:
BY THE WAY...
Why don't you take your intellectually dishonest behind back up there to where my quote you responded to here came from, and answer the logic there.
I friggin taught the class for a semester in college, while I'm not a philosopher and don't claim to be some superior logic wielding dude, I'd have to argue my past in Debate and Logic would make me qualified to say, "YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN A LOGICAL RESPONSE YET!"
- Status