Same-Sex Marriage.
A topic debated heatedly throughout the country. Is it legal? Is it ethical? Should it be allowed?
Everyone has their own take. Most are based on how you were raised, whether you were taught that homosexuality is right or wrong.
But I dare you to consider both sides.
Should same sex marriage be legalized?
The Pros:
1-Denying the right to marry to homosexuals is a violation of religious freedom. Remember, there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State in the US and civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions.
2-All couples, homosexual or not, should be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Why should a couple be denied joint ownership, medical decision-making, etc, just because of their sexual preference?
3-Nowadays, homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle with a proven biological cause.
4-To deny marriage to same sex couples is discrimination to a minority.
5-Allowing same sex marriage will not hurt society or anyone individually.
6-Marriage is a union between two people who love each other.
7-Same sex marriage encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.
The Cons:
1-Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.
2-People argue to would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage.
3-It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society.
4-It would allow for other changes in marriage laws, like pologamy.
So now, do you still feel the same way?
I personally sway back and forth. I know the Bible says that it is wrong, and that the issue causes a lot of controversy. But on the other hand, I have many gay friends and I don't see a reason as to why they shouldn't be happy.
The only serious problem I see with allowing same-sex couples to marry would be the ability of any two people to marry just for the benefits of a civil union. (But this happens already and there is no guaruntee that allowing same-sex marriage would increase this occurance.) And while we are at it, let's not call this marriage. Marriage is a state of mind; a celebration in front of friends and family to announce to everyone a couple's love and commitment to each other for their lives. The issue at hand is the government's recognition of such unions. No one is suggesting that gay couples should be allowed to marry in any church of their choice. Supporters are suggesting that as a couple who pledges their love and dedication to one another should be allowed the same financial/medical benefits that hetero-couples receive from the government.
There is supposed to be a separation of church and state.
If this were true, then opposing arguements are weak.
1. It is against my moral beliefs -- these moral beliefs are separate from what the governing body allows.
2. It would weaken the definition of marriage -- Not allowing two persons who are totally dedicated to each other to unite under the eyes of government is MORE detrimental to marriage. The point of marriage is to share life with another. Denying this to anyone for any reason is putting limitations on marriage that degrade its purpose.
3. It weakens the traditional family values of Americans -- So do single parent households weaken traditional family values?? How about the average divorce rate of 50%?? Values change and evolve over time. Change is inevitable! I feel that having two people who love and care for a child is always better than one, despite the sex of said people.
4. It would allow poligomy -- Just not true. No where would allowing TWO persons of the same sex unite lead to poligomy. There is no consideration to allow multiply marriage partners.
Gay couples merely want the same rights as straight couples. Why are we so hard pressed to allow it????
Legally, same sex marriages are correct. Morally, they are against christian values. What ever happened to living by the word of God?
What God? Whose God? Christian? Jewish? Moslem? One of the Hindu's? The Wiccan God/Goddess? Zoroastrianism? Scientologists? Mormons? Jehovah Witness? Zeus? Odin? Osiris?
Whatever happened to living by common sense and humanistic decency? Whatever happened to actually make proper decisions based on rational thinking and compassionate consideration? Whatever happened to using your brains instead of having an old set of unverifiable stories make decisions for you instead of coming to your own conclusions like the living, capable human beings we are?
When someone can prove the "word of God", (whichever one THAT may be), as being testable, consistent and irrefutably true, then maybe we can talk about just "following" a creed without critical judgement of it.
Your very existence proves God's existence. Look at the world today? Does it not reveal the word of God. Aren't the times, just as the word prophesised? I pray that someday, God will truly be transformed in your life.
"Your very existence proves God's existence."
LOL. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. MY very existence proves nothing other than to my own mind that I exist. You could all be a dream that I'm having that could go "poof" at any time I wake up. That is the only true "proof" in this world that is absolute. The existence of our own thoughts and senses. Of course that kind of semantics is called solipsism, or semantic bullshit wanking if you prefer.
Still it's useful to keep in mind when the religious side always demands this absolute bar of perfect proof that doesn't exist in the real world. We use a method that accurately describes reality as close as possible to theories that can make predictions and stand up to intrinsic tests of their value and we accept that as truth. Guess what? In all of the scientific theories that have been formulated, tested and verified over the years, "God" as a testable term has never been necessary as a cog in the wheel.
We don't need God to explain life or the universe, so there is absolutely no proof of his existence at ALL. Like it or not, it's true. So you thinking its simply proof otherwise by having life shows great ignorance of human knowledge.
"Look at the world today? Does it not reveal the word of God. "
No. This is nothing more then poetic nonsense. What "word"? Try to lay out specifics and see how quickly I can show you what they really are in the mundane world.
". Aren't the times, just as the word prophesised?"
Again, no they are not. The Bible has a mish-mash of prophecies, and a great DEAL of them have not only failed to come true, but they were completely WRONG. On top of this, so many of the "end time" prophecies are so poetically vague that anyone could pick a whack of them at random and ascribe them to almost ANY disaster the earch could conceivably have. A meteor could hit the earth, a tremendous earthquake could cause huge floods, whatever. The Bible would undoubtedly pull out one of it's generic handy-dandy skies are falling, seas are boiling tripe sentences and claim it was "prophesied". You really should expand your reading more.
" I pray that someday, God will truly be transformed in your life."
Transformed? That's Blasphemy. God is the same yesterday and today and tomorrow. He NEVER changes. Well, except for those few quotes that say otherwise, but that big one is the most important.
I concur!
Bravo to you! Very well spoken!
My family has thought long and hard on the question of the creation and reason for our existance; we have come to the conclusion, after considerable deliberation, that my two year old brother is the controller of the universe.
^_^
Can you tell your brother to stop all the rain then.
Wow, I always pictured the controller of the universe to be a little taller!
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
"The Bible has a mish-mash of prophecies, and a great DEAL of them have not only failed to come true, but they were completely WRONG. "
-That's not true. Every prophesy in the Bible has come true.
"God is the same yesterday and today and tomorrow. He NEVER changes."
-You're right. He loves you even while you deny Him. But I pray that you will be transformed and will find God and come to know and love Him, as I do.
Why do you bother? you KNOW I'm just going to prove you wrong:
Failed Prophecies:
The Bible also contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not (Skeptic's Annotated Bible n.d.). For example:
Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
1. Ezekiel chapter 26 ERRONEOUSLY predicts that during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar [Ez 26:7] the city of Tyre will be UTTERLY DESTROYED, become a BARE ROCK [Ez 26:4; 26:14 - KJV says "like the top of a rock"; NIV says "scrape away the rubble and make a bare rock"], and NEVER BE REBUILT [Ez 26:14; 26:21]. The city was defeated in battle in 587 BC, during King Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but was NOT "utterly" destroyed or "never rebuilt." In fact, today has more than 20,000 inhabitants at the core of a metropolitan area of more than 100,000 people! (Even within Bible times, long after the battle described by Ezekiel, Tyre had already been rebuilt and, in New Testament times it is still portrayed as a CITY (Mark 3:8) and as a harbor where ships could unload (Acts 21:3,7) -- so I guess this could qualify not only as a failed prophecy, but also as a CONTRADICTION.
2. Matt 12:40 clearly says: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Please note it says THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS (the same as in Jonah 1:17 which it refers to). Yet ALL FOUR GOSPELS report that Jesus died on Friday evening and was resurrected on Sunday morning (at or before dawn, some more contradictions on this point), which would only allow less than 36 hours, not three days AND three nights.
3. In Matt 24:34 Jesus predicts that the end of the world and all the fantastic "signs" he describes will occur within the lifetimes of the "current generation."
4. Isaiah 7:14 is widely claim as a prophesy for a messiah, who shall be given the name "Immanuel." This must not be referring to the son of Mary and Joseph, since they did NOT name him Immanuel, but rather, Jesus. The only reference to the name Immanuel in the entire New Testament is Matt 1:23 referring to Isaiah's prophecy, but even Matthew never actually uses that as a name or reference to Jesus and, in fact, there is no Bible record of Jesus being named or even ever called or referred to as "Immanuel."
On top of this, here is an article you should read on prophecies as it is very important to this discussion:
There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:
Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.
There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.
In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass; Jonah 3 gives an example. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.
Why do I bother? Because I know I'm not wrong. I don't have time to respond to all of those but here's a few responses:
"Please note it says THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS (the same as in Jonah 1:17 which it refers to). Yet ALL FOUR GOSPELS report that Jesus died on Friday evening and was resurrected on Sunday morning (at or before dawn, some more contradictions on this point), which would only allow less than 36 hours, not three days AND three nights."
-The Bible is not literal with words suchs as days, night, etc. A day didn't necessarily take 24 hrs. People also say creation would have been impossible in 6 days. But it didn't necessarily take 6 days because we have no idea how long or short 1 day is equivalent to in our times.
"Isaiah 7:14 is widely claim as a prophesy for a messiah, who shall be given the name "Immanuel." This must not be referring to the son of Mary and Joseph, since they did NOT name him Immanuel, but rather, Jesus. The only reference to the name Immanuel in the entire New Testament is Matt 1:23 referring to Isaiah's prophecy, but even Matthew never actually uses that as a name or reference to Jesus and, in fact, there is no Bible record of Jesus being named or even ever called or referred to as "Immanuel."
-The Bible has so many names for God and Jesus. Since they're the same being, there have been names such as God, Lord, Jesus, Yahweh, Immanuel, I Am, etc. In the Catholic Church some of our hymns have titles suchas "Immanuel" and believe me, the hymns are directed towards Jesus.
"There are no prophesies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories. "
-I disagree. One prophesy was that Jesus would be born to the Virgin Mary, that He would be the Son of God, and that He would be the messiah. This didn't become realized just because of change, vagueness, etc.
The very fact that you "know" you are not wrong just speaks volumes. You are a fanatical believer that simply cannot accept the possibility that your beliefs may not be true. Like any fanatic, you will excuse, apologize for and ignore contradictions that are presented to you. Ultimately it isn't you that will necessarily benefit from being exposed like this, but thankfully the audience of these conversations can see for themselves whose position has stronger merit.
Oh so it's perfectly ok to play games with the words used in the Bible and arbitrarily decide that some can be COMPLETELY metaphorical. Now a day isn't 24 hour periods, it's thousands of years. And who gets to decide what parts are metaphorical? Oh right. The Catholic Church.
Have you ever heard of religious apologism?
Nice try. It still doesn't satisfy the prophecy. It did not come true. He was NOT given the name "Immanuel", and I could bring up that name to most people and they would have no clue who I was talking about. Someone who decided to include the name in a few scattered hymns simply BECAUSE they knew about the passage of the Bible hardly makes the prophecy any more fulfilled.
So you picked the two vaguest ones and tried to pretend they aren't really meant to be that specific or literal. Then what the hell use is prophecy? By making it so meaningless and metaphorical, you are making it easier and easier to "fill". This is exactly why people don't buy this shit. On top of this you didn't bother to address the other examples I gave that were indisputably failed prophecies as they were actually recorded as being wrong IN THE BIBLE.
I'm sorry but this is just making you look dishonest and deceptive. I gave you clear proof from your own source material. This should be more than enough to get a concession that all prophecies did not "come true" and some have indeed failed. Face it. The book is NOT infallible.
The problem here is that this was NOT a public prophecy. Only the people who were actually INVOLVED was aware of this "prophecy". The angel told Joseph about it and sealed his lips. Mary wasn't speaking. How was this a prophecy?
It isn't like word was spread by a prophet 100 years prior naming a specific woman and man that were just found at the right time and lo and behold, had the exact names as the prophecy.
It'd be like me winning the lotto and claiming that "The Lord God came to me in a dream 10 years ago and told me to play these winning numbers on this date and to be just patient as they would be the right ones."
What kind of prophecy would that be? A worthless one because nobody ELSE knew about it, so there was nothing to wait for.
That was only a SMALL list I posted. There are many, many more. Look:
God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14
"In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Isaac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16
Genesis
God promises Abram's descendants the land of Canaan from the Nile to the Euphrates. But according to Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13 God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 15:18
The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10 God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3
Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. Gen.50:24
Joshua
God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land. 1:3-5
Joshua tells the Israelites that God will "without fail" drive out the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But later, the Bible tells us that he could not drive them out. 3:10
This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28
Samuel
God says that Solomon's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. 7:13, 16
2 Kings
God promises Josiah that he will have a peaceful death. But Josiah's death was anything but peaceful. (2 Kg.23:29-30, 2 Chr.35:23-24) 22:20
In Jeremiah (34:4) God tells Zedekiah that he will die in peace and be buried with his fathers. But this verse and Jer.52:10-11 say that he died a violent death in a foreign land. 25:7
Isaiah
This verse prophesies that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. Yet Damascus has never been completely destroyed and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. 17:1
The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5
"The land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt." Judah never invaded Egypt and was never a military threat to Egypt. 19:17
Matthew (1:12) lists Jeconiah as an ancestor of Jesus -- which, according to this prophecy, disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah. 22:28-30
I have to skip over countless more just to get to the ones in the New Testament without taking up so much room
Matthew
Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre. 2:17-18
"He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. 2:23
Jesus tells his disciples that he will return before they can "go over the cities of Israel." Later (24:14) he says he will not come until the gospel is preached throughout the world. Well, his disciples went over the cities of Israel and then died waiting for the "return of the Lord." Now, nearly 2000 years later, and long after the gospel had been preached throughout the world, his followers still wait. 10:23
Jesus visits Tyre which according to Ezekiel (26:14, 21; 27:36, 28:19) was not supposed to exist. 15:21
Mark
Jesus shows that he is a false prophet by predicting his return and the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners. 13:30
Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. 14:62
Luke
Jesus says that all that he describes (his return, signs in the sun, moon, and stars, etc.) will occur within the within the lifetime of his listeners. 21:32
Jesus claims that his suffering and death were a fulfillment of prophecy. But there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament. 24:44, 46
John
Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him. Where? It's a shame he didn't give us chapter and verse. 5:46
Jesus falsely prophesies that "there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." This will never happen as long a Christian beliefs are based on the Bible. 10:16
This verse claims that Jesus fulfils the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. 12:15
Verse 33 says that during Jesus' crucifixion, the soldiers didn't break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Ex.12:46, Num. 9:12 and Ps.34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Num.9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person. 19:33, 36
Anyway, that was just SOME of an entire list you can read here:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
It is quite clear to anyone who can read English with the comprehension skills of a 8 year old can see that there are many failed prophecies.
"Oh so it's perfectly ok to play games with the words used in the Bible and arbitrarily decide that some can be COMPLETELY metaphorical. Now a day isn't 24 hour periods, it's thousands of years. And who gets to decide what parts are metaphorical? Oh right. The Catholic Church. "
-The majority of theologians agree that a day wasn't 24 hrs. This is not only Catholic theologians - most denominations of Christianity agree with this.
"Nice try. It still doesn't satisfy the prophecy. It did not come true. He was NOT given the name "Immanuel", and I could bring up that name to most people and they would have no clue who I was talking about. Someone who decided to include the name in a few scattered hymns simply BECAUSE they knew about the passage of the Bible hardly makes the prophecy any more fulfilled."
-We don't really know His real name. Because Jesus wasn't His real name. Knowing the name of a God gives you control over them, which is why those being exorcised cannot be rid of demons until the demons release their names. He was called Jesus, Jesus the Nazarene in the Bible, but His true name is unknown. Just like nobody knows God's name. He said to call Him "I Am," meaning I Am what I am. A name is unneccesary. The name Jesus simply means "God will help."
Now I'm not going to respond to all of your examples simply because it would take me hours. But you need to realize that many prophecies are still being realized today and will be realized until the end of time.
Here's 10 prophecies being fulfilled recently: http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
Here's 10 being fulfilled now: http://www.100prophecies.org/page1.htm
10 fulfilled in the 1900's: http://www.100prophecies.org/page4.htm
"The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5 "
-This is just one example of a future occurance.
"He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. 2:23 "
-http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/nazareneQuestion.htm "As an interesting footnote, the Lord himself, in his conversation with Saul on the road to Damascus, identified himself as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 22:8)."
Who CARES what they agree on? They all have a common agenda. Of COURSE they will try to make excuses to get the scripture to fit whatever way they want. The point is that this DEMEANS the integrity of the book as a literal document of infallible truth. It's not like God sent footnotes along with the scripture saying "THIS part is metaphorical, and this part is true for now but my son will say different later, and THIS part is just cultural laws and irrelevant, but THIS is absolute and unchangeing". C'mon, you can't expect people to take that kind of idea seriously.
This has NOTHING to do with the prophecy. It said that he would be called Immanuel. In any event, it's either a wrong prophecy, or a worthless one.
"A" God?? What kind of pagan faith are you trying to suggest here? There is only ONE God. You aren't even being consistent with your faith by this statement.
You know as well as I do that I listed a great deal of ones that have very blatantly been wrong. If you won't admit that, then you are either fooling yourself or being extremely deceptive.
Your list of other prophecies from those links are silly. They are vague generalizations, and hardly definitive. Almost every single prophecy in those lists are regarding Israel and they are hardly difficult things to "predict". The Christian world DELIBERATELY helped Israel form because of their sympathizing with Jews as the originators of their faith. They were actually TRYING to fulfill such prophecies. And then you have others that you can simply say "Well it hasn't happened yet". You could make prophecies like those about almost ANY major ethnic group and/or nation on this earth and they would have almost certainly fit the same predictions. They are simply far too general and vague and it doesn't take any kind of supernatural ability to divine those very mundane statements.
In any event, it wouldn't even matter if some of the "prophecies" came true. If there is even ONE single one in the Bible that has failed, and it is recorded as being a genuine prophecy, then the Bible is exposed as being fallible. And I have already proved that this is the case.
If people can get to that first stage of the game, they will take a big step towards honesty and the eventual respect of religion in it's place. Believing in the inspiration and potential truths behind scripture is one thing. Believing 100% inerrancy is another.
Saul is in the New Testament. So the quote I gave you is absolutely correct. It is NOT mentioned in the Old Testament as a prophecy.
"C'mon, you can't expect people to take that kind of idea seriously."
-Obviously billions of people do take it seriously. Now I'm no theologian, but they have reasons as to why they believe that days weren't 24-hours long. Next year when I take my theology courses in my college I will be more informed about minor details of the Bible, such as this.
"A" God?? What kind of pagan faith are you trying to suggest here? There is only ONE God. You aren't even being consistent with your faith by this statement."
-I know, I believe in only one God, but this is the case for many religions. Anyway, you always try to look at the insignificant aspects of what I saw. The main point was that nobody can know the name of God, or they would have control over Him.
"You know as well as I do that I listed a great deal of ones that have very blatantly been wrong. If you won't admit that, then you are either fooling yourself or being extremely deceptive."
-No, I won't admit that. If I had time to sit down and look through each of those Bible passages you mentioned, I would. But for now, no, I'm not just going to say, oh, you're right, because I didn't research them enough. They could be answered in other parts of the Bible. Or they could be answered in recent times. Now I'm not saying I'm 100% right either. I'm just saying I don't know because I can't goo look up each of the thngs you listed.
I still believe that the Bible, and the Pope are infallible.
Billions of people believed the world was flat too. Did it make them any more right?
I don't know where you're getting that idea, but I have never heard anything even remotely similar in ANY Christian denomination. It wouldn't make sense anyway since God IS the supreme being. Nothing and nobody could "control" him. But anyway, this is going off into cuckoo land.
Well then you're in for a very rude awakening someday my dear. Believe what you want of course, but don't expect other people to suspend their good sense and believe such a ridiculous thing. It's childs play to prove both of them being very fallible. You just have to open your eyes and learn to think critically.
No, of course they weren't right about the world being flat. But what you asked was, "C'mon, you can't expect people to take that kind of idea seriously." So I said that obviously lots of people do take it seriously. The way you put it, it sounded like you couldn't believe any single person would take that seriously. Well, we do.
"But anyway, this is going off into cuckoo land."
-Fine, but knowing something's name gives you power. Which is why the demons can't be released from a possessed person until they let their name out. Then, and only then can they be extinguished.
" It's childs play to prove both of them being very fallible."
-God gives the Pope the grace of infallibility. Any decisions he makes come directly from God; not from a human being.
But so many have already proved the bible is fallible. There are inconsistancies, mistranslations, books left out, ideas altered to serve the writer, etc. If the bible was truly infallible it would be in the same exact form -- yet there are over 200,000 variations in the new testament alone, not to mention that no two ancient versions of the bible are alike. How can you deny this? Can you really just ignore hard FACTS like this?
LOL. I'm glad someone else is sharing my frustration.
The sad thing is that some people can try to ignore things like this. I think it's getting through to them, they just don't want to admit it.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
I guess I was going for rational person...
If you aren't just a believer, you naturally question these things and if they don't stand up to honest scrutiny, then it is more than reasonable to say that it's nonsensical. You think it's perfectly ok to conveniently interpret the Bible in whatever way is best suited to make it seem more cohesive and fitted to reality than what it is. I'm just calling a spade a spade and saying that's ridiculous. Either it's literal or it's not. If it IS entirely literal, then if something is demonstrably inconsistent with reality, ergo the Bible is not infallible. If it is a mixture of literalism and metaphorical stories, then it is impossible to ascertain what is what and therefore picking and choosing so called prohibitions and morals based on its contents is ridiculous.
Well then you don't know the meaning of the word infallible because the Pope's HAVE been wrong in the past, and this one is ALSO continuing in their footsteps. He was just blasted the other day for suggesting "secularism" as being the reason for Canada's low birthrate and after careful scrutiny of statistics, it's been shown that even in countries with VERY high faith based families, the birth rate is not appreciably higher. They couldn't find one whit of evidence linking faith to fertility, so once again, he's *drumroll*.....WRONGO.
On top of this, you should learn about a little something called circular reasoning. It is a logical fallacy. What is a logical fallacy? A flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. What does invalid mean? Wrong by default.
Technically it's called "begging the question", and in fact I've called you on this before. It's a favourite fallacy of religious people. It's useful in trying to circumvent a useless little thing like evidence.
Fallacy: Begging the Question
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.
Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
Examples of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
Do you understand now why your statement has no intrinsic truth to it?
"I guess I was going for rational person..."
-And millions of rational people believe this, too. I don't care if you think I'm irrational. Jesus told His followers that we will be persecuted for following Him. And we are...every day, but we need to stand up for our beliefs and that's exactly what I'm doing.
The Pope is infallible. Since Jesus Christ Himself instituted the first Pope, they have all been given that grace from God. It's the reason the Catholic Church has stood up to so much in its history.
You've already told me about this logical fallacy.
Then why do you continue using this type of argument?
Because it is the only one she has. :)
Seriously, there is no longer any point in going further with the debate. She is now effectively ending any chance to reach her by relying on what they call the Invicible Wall of Ignorance position. It's like trying to reason with someone who has their fingers in their ears. Logic won't reach her because she refuses to let it contradict her faith. It's impossible to go from here.
That's sad. To be so closed minded.
I am not saying that Christianity is wrong -- it can be great for people who need it -- But to blindly follow everything told to you with no proof, not even an inkling... What we are arguing wouldn't negate the religion. Why the need to feel so threatened?
I think many other people are close-minded on this site about Christianity on the opposite spectrum. They say that they won't listen to any response that mentions the Bible, God, Heaven, Hell, Jesus Christ, etc. Well, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the only way anyone will reach the Father in Heaven. What most of you need is our prayers. So that you can find God, too. I know that He is the only true path anyone can ever have. You ujst need to realize that, too.
There is a difference between being open minded and open so that your brains fall out.
Just because everyone does not just "believe" like you want them to does not make them close minded. It simply makes them unconvinced.
Because your response is MEANINGLESS to them. They don't share your belief. You don't seem to understand one very simple thing. People ask for reasons to why they should believe what you believe. You don't HAVE reasons, you have empty promises you can't substantiate. Your message ends up saying believe FIRST and then you'll understand.
That is ass backwards and it will never convince anyone.
Which has always been shown to be such a useful thing for other people...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/31/no_benefit_of_prayer_found_after_surgery/
WASHINGTON -- Praying for other people to recover from an illness is ineffective, according to the largest, best-designed study to try to examine the power of prayer to heal strangers at a distance.
The study of more than 1,800 heart bypass surgery patients found that those who had other people praying for them had as many complications as those who did not. In fact, one group of patients who knew they were the subject of prayers fared worse.
The long-awaited results, the latest in a series of studies that have failed to find any benefit from ''distant" or ''intercessory" prayer, came as a blow to the hopes of some that scientific research would validate the popular notion that people can influence the health of people even if they don't know someone is praying for them.
Translation: All that matters is I'm convinced my way of thinking is absolute truth and you'll be fine as long as just accept what I believe and think like me.
I personally am not closed-minded at all. I lived Christianity, obeyed the bible for many years and ultimately decided this way of life isn't for me. For me, my true path is the other fork in the road -- the logical, self-determinism way. I feel that I am the only one able to create or destroy my future. I understand that believing in fate provides much easier consequences to deal with -- i.e. it was god's will or it was meant to be so I must accept it.
The point is you cannot provide proof of god by citing a book that has various translation errors, inconsistancies, and many differing versions. The bible as proof is invalid. Using the bible as proof is equivalent to me using Roman mythology to prove there are many gods -- and I assume you would (rightly) reject Roman mythology as the truth.
Do you really believe in demons???
*~Heidi~*
Who's being "fanatical" now? Look, I'm not going to name you a "blasphemer" or "a Godless heathen" or anyone of those things--and, for reference, I was using those as a for instance--because that's unfair. You can argue all you want about the "lies of the bible" or anything else. The bible is the word of God, not his "proof that I am real". Faith is what makes you either believe or not believe; you have it or you don't. There will NEVER be proof that he exsisted because there would be no way to prove it even if it was there. You cannot disprove it because you have no SOLID evidence to disprove. You can "disprove writings" all the days of your life and STILL someone can counteract you; and vise-versa. Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it "wrong"; just like because we believe something, that doesn't make it "right". Religion is the FAITH [belief that is not based on proof] that what you believe is real. You have no right to take my faith away, nor would I have any right to take yours. This fight, between both of you, is frivolous.
Plus, you can't make "real" arguements if you take reference from a book that is already made on biased terms. Unless both of you look into the conversation with unbiased eyes, this fight is ridiculous. But, if you really feel that you should fight, then continue on. As trivial and puerile as it all is.
Now let's remember the topic of this post: homosexual marriages.
"Sex is a creation of God, who pronounced all His creation “good!” Sexuality is not sinful. It is a wonderful part of God’s plan.
God put a limit on sex, though. Yes, a limit – only one. There is no long dissertation on the do’s and don’ts of sex. The only caveat to the enjoyment of sex is this: sex is meant to be enjoyed in the context of marriage – not outside of it. Unfortunately, these days we must be specific. Sex is to be enjoyed within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. That’s it! That’s the limit. Genesis 2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Hebrew 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” All sexual sins (i.e. promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are sins because they do not conform to the limit of sex being a marital activity. Now of course some of you will point out the list of sexual activity prohibited by the Mosaic laws, but let’s not address those issues of the law from which Paul said we are now free. Instead, let’s stick to those ancient commands that endure eternal. To that end, the above-mentioned single rule is how we are to judge sexual morality.
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”
Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality. " (from http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/christianliving/homosexuality.php)
"The first reference to homosexuality in Scripture is in the infamous account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. The wickedness of the men of that city is obvious and is of such a severe nature that it brought divine destruction upon the entire city. Both Peter and Jude make reference to it and describe the sin of homosexuality as " ungodly, lawless, unnatural and extreme immorality" (see 2 Peter 2:6, 8; Jude 7).
In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an "abomination" and "defiling." It is reprehensible and unclean.
In Leviticus 20:13 it is again described as an "abomination."
Deuteronomy 23:17 forbade the presence of a "sodomite" in the land of Israel.
An incident similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen again in Judges 19. Again the sin of homosexuality is described as "wickedness."
In 1 Kings 14, 15, and 22 the removal of male prostitutes from the land of Israel is viewed as a sign of much-needed spiritual reformation.
The prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5 of women wearing men's clothing appears to be a specific condemnation of transvestism.
In Romans 1:18-32 the apostle Paul condemns the practice in the severest terms. Homosexuality is "unclean," "impure," "dishonoring to the body," "vile," "degrading / disgraceful," "contrary to nature," "unseemly/ obscene," "improper activity of a depraved mind," "unrighteous," "wicked," etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is "unnatural"--contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then, a particularly rebellious sin.
“Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” (Romans 1: 24-32)
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" who "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The terms he uses here seem to be specific references to both active and the passive participants in a homosexual relationship. Such people are "unrighteous," he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.
"Man shall not condone evil or rationalize sin. Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God and man! The Creator condemns those who do not repent of this sin." - Our Lady of the Roses, August 5, 1977" (from http://www.tldm.org/News6/homosexuality3.htm)
Since countless other quotes in the Bible have been shown to be untrue, it doesn't impress me much.
You then go on and on with the typical selective scriptural verses that are conveniently translated as they wish it to be in English and declared to be infallible.
All I'm going to say about those in summary is in response to this:
Eating SHELLFISH is also listed as an "abomination". NOW it's perfectly ok. For something so reviled and condemned as worthy of death, it became pretty irrelevant when Jesus decided to change the rules and say it was "ok" to eat anything. Then he turns around and says he was not changing ANY of the old law. You can't have it both ways. It's contradictory and hypocritical.
I certainly wouldn't live my life chained to ancient passages of many times over translated sayings that don't even stand up to logic or internal consistency. You can believe and do what you like, but you have no justifiable reason to expect others to believe what you do when it doesn't even stand up to honest scrutiny.
What's sad is that people have the nerve to use this unsubstantiated hooey to discriminate against other human beings and condemn their natural urges as being "wrong". The Christian religion is nothing more than a breeding ground for bigots when it comes right down to it, and this world would be far better off it it vanished from the face of the earth. Too bad THAT miracle couldn't happen.
You are going to argue Christian Bible, get your facts right. It's Emmanuel by the way, and it means God in Hebrew. In the book of Mathew he tells of Mary's unborn child Emmanuel, Meaning God. So get your facts straight. And also on another note, everything fore told in the Revelations has so far come true. Watch the History channel sometime and get a real education, cause it has an episode that explains it in depth. You can stay a non-believer and lie to yourself or for once in your life you can live for something that actually has meaning. Not a lot of people except Christ because they don't have faith. They are not even comfortable enough with themselves to actually believe in something. Which in my opinion is pathetic. So go on being yourself, I hope one day you grow up and realize what you have been missing out on.
And also on another note, everything fore told in the Revelations has so far come true.
Could you be more specific? I would be very interested to hear any connections between the book of Revelations and actual modern events. I would be even MORE interested in seeing any actual, objective evidence that you can produce to demonstrate a causal connection between the two.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Just wanted to point out that in Jewish times (in which Jesus lived), Thursday night after sundown (according to our time) was in reality already Friday morning. They used the Juilan calendar.
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Check out my blog:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/arhipgeo86
But according to the bible, he changes his mind. There are several discrepancies between the New and Old testament. Why did those ideas change?
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
So, you don't need God to explain our (the human race's) existence, eh? Did you folks finially figure our a way to explain how some amino acids, existent from no apparent cause, formed into a promitive organism BY no apparent cause? Did you figure out how to explain Irreducible Complexity all the way down to the promordial soup? The only argument I have heard against IC is that it is basically "not fair! too hard!" Oh, and did you guys manage to show, in a lab, that macroevolution is possible? Did you find any anthropological evidence to suggest a DIRECT, NOT INFERRED connection between you, me, and Lucy? How about a good explaination for the apparent ressurection of Christ? Do you have his bones, or maybe even some documentation of his body after he purportedly rose?
How about the universe? Did ya figure out how that big ol' thing got there? Any brilliant ideas as to how, with the stunningly unlikely conditions that seem to exist, including those perfect for life to live, HOW they actually came about? The vocation of Methodological Naturalism is to explain the physical, not explain away the metaphysical.
You mentioned that your thoughts and senses prove your own existence. How is this? I don't suppose you ever read David Hume. If this is your only standard of proof, then your standard of proof is simply flawed, and needs to be reworked. We have had this discussion before, although you failed (I think) to answer my last post (although I have since lost the link to that page). SO: answer me these simple questions and we'll go from there, eh?
Actually, yes to all of the above. I won't go into the detail of explaining it all here. Just go pick up any science book and read it for a few minutes. The answers will come.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
No, it doesn't. Why would god be transformed? Is he going to morph into another creature? Like a power ranger?
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
Yes, our existence does show that there is a god. However, because there are many different religions, there are different kinds of Gods. I believe that God created us to love and respect each other. God has made us this way....gay or straight, we are created the same way. These are things that will NEVER change. We all came from our mothers, created the same way. Gay people don't choose to be gay, they were born that way. So that they may live a somewhat normal life, they try to live a good life. Even if that life doesn't always match what others would consider normal.
"Whatever happened to using your brains instead of having an old set of unverifiable stories make decisions for you instead of coming to your own conclusions like the living, capable human beings we are?" - kpartington
She did come up or make her decision. She chose to follow "an old set of unverifiable stories." You say that it is stupid to believe a bunch of stories and not use your brain. I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone else's belief system and tell them they have got it wrong. That is a decision to be made by the person, and once made, it should be respected. The same for living by the Word of God. Some people are atheists, and it is silly to expect them to follow something that they don't believe exists.
Nothing for those who choose to do so. Luckily, our government and religion are separate organizations. Because of this, nobody is obligated to live by someone else's ideas of what is right and wrong.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
I completely agree with every single one of your paragraoh back. You took the thoughts out of my head.
Peace.
Um... I don't know what you've been told, but I'm pretty sure that *** IS a HIGH RISK LIFESTYLE!!! Have you ever heard of the AIDS virus and other immuno-deficiency diseases? Studies have been done that show the possibility of these diseases existing and being perpetuated because of sexual immorality like homosexual relationships and promiscuity. Research it yourself, you so-called scholar! Secondly, homosexuality does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT promote strong family values. I beg to differ, that it promotes selfishness, rebellion and perpetuates the confusion of same-sex attraction in children who a gay or lesbian couple may have the unfortunate opportunity to raise - all of which are not good to teach children who are innocent until corrupted. If you think that gays and lesbians who want to get married just so they can receive the monetary benefits of our government and healthcare, etc, is not selfish, then you need to re-think things a lot. The purpose of a civil marriage recognized by law is to RAISE CHILDREN and PROMOTE LOVE and CHARITY between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as God ordained from the beginning!!!
edited by sawaboof for TOS Violation 12.05.2008
Um... I don't know what you've been told, but I'm pretty sure that fudge-packing IS a HIGH RISK LIFESTYLE!!!
This might be a surprise to you, but gay people aren't the only ones who engage in anal sex. *rolls eyes*
Have you ever heard of the AIDS virus and other immuno-deficiency diseases?
Indeed I have, and statistically speaking, the vastly overwhelming majority of people living with HIV were infected through heterosexual contact. There are over 33 million people currently living with HIV in the world. Only a small percentage of HIV infections world-wide are gay. Gay people in the U.S. and Europe have a higher risk of exposure due to the fact that STD's are spread primarily though intimate contact and thus tend to follow closely related communities. In the U.S., less than half of all new HIV infections are due to MSM contact.
The real point, however, is to point out the fallacy of trying to blame a disease on a community of people, based on non-scientific and hightly biased criteria. One could similarly point out, for example, that the VAST majority of HIV infections in both the U.S. and around the world are among dark-skinned (African and African-American) men and women. But doing so doesn't provide you with any useful information for combating the disease. People don't get sick because of who they are, or who they sleep with. They get sick because they are exposed to a pathogen. A gay man who is not promiscuous, and whose partner is not infected with HIV has a 0% chance of becoming infected with HIV. Even a gay person who IS promiscuous and who knowling has sex with HIV+ partners has a very limited chance of becoming infected if he takes the proper precautions. Lesbians are the big winner in these arguments, as they have the lowest rate of infection of ANY identifiable group, with a statical rate of infection of 0%.
Studies have been done that show the possibility of these diseases existing and being perpetuated because of sexual immorality like homosexual relationships and promiscuity. Research it yourself, you so-called scholar!
Can you cite any of these "studies?" I would bet a wooden nickel that you can't, and I would be another than anything that you CAN find either A) isn't a scientifically credible, peer-reviewed study or B) doesn't agree with your emotionally biased conclusions.
Secondly, homosexuality does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT promote strong family values.
That is a matter of opinion. The gay families that I know have very similar values to the straight families that I know. They love and support each other. They make sure their kids get to school in the morning. They pay their bills every month. They cry when tragedy strikes and smile when it doesn't. Some don't share the same religious beliefs, which of course is very often what people who kvetch about "family values" are really talking about. Fortunately, the United States does not require its citizens to share each other's religious beliefs.
I beg to differ, that it promotes selfishness,
What is "selfish" about wanting to share one's life with someone you love?
rebellion
I might agree with you, here...but I would suggest that rebellion is often a good thing. If it weren't then there wouldn't even be a United States of America.
and perpetuates the confusion of same-sex attraction in children who a gay or lesbian couple may have the unfortunate opportunity to raise
Factually incorrect. The effect of gay and lesbian parents and role-models on the children in their care is a pretty well-studied phenomenon, and there is absolutely no evidence that would suggest that this is true.
- all of which are not good to teach children who are innocent until corrupted. If you think that gays and lesbians who want to get married just so they can receive the monetary benefits of our government and healthcare, etc, is not selfish, then you need to re-think things a lot.
Its true that gay people don't want to get married "just" because of the practical benefits that the institution provides, but being unable to protect our families both financially and legally IS a pretty big deal for us. That's largely because we don't need to turn to ANYONE to justify the less practical aspects of our relationships. Our love is none of your business, and you couldn't stop it if you tried.
The purpose of a civil marriage recognized by law is to RAISE CHILDREN
If that were true, then why is there no requirement to demonstrate fertility before heterosexual couples can obtain a marriage license? Why are infertile heterosexul couples granted marriage licenses regularly and without issue? Why are heterosexual couples who NEVER have a child afforded the same rights and privileges of marriage as those who do?
and PROMOTE LOVE and CHARITY between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as God ordained from the beginning!!!
Now, this may be news to you, but in the United States, we are not permitted to pass laws because "god ordained it." In fact, laws based on that premise are inherently unconstitutional. I would also like to point out that marriage (of both the same-and-opposite-sex varieties) has been around longer than any religion currently practiced in the world. Even in christian history, the church didn't even consider marriage a sacrament until the Council of Florence in 1431 C.E. Through most of its own history, even the christian church has considered marriage to be primarily a secular arrangement.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Well, we both make a good argument for either case, don't we? That just goes to show me that it's a waste of time to provide you with any citations to satisfy your wooden nickel bet, because you'll just come back with some other cock-eyed retorts and examples to try and prove ME wrong. This is a battle that can never be won in this manner, because it doesn't come down to who can argue a better case, it comes down to the fact that homosexuality is wrong by God's standard, and the day will come when you will have to face that and be judged accordingly to it. There is one flaw with this country's constitution which I know well and a love, and that problem is this: It was designed with the faith and assumption that the vast majority of people would have righteous desires in mind, and as the vast majority of people become more corrupt and more unrighteous in this country, it will be reflected more and more in our laws until we are ripe for destruction. It has happened to numerous civilizations throughout time. Research it, you so-called scholar! It's called the scriptures! I bet you a wooden nickel that you've never truly read, pondered and prayed about them to know that they are true, and in the end, that's what matters most, not your gay and lesbian rights. And gays and lesbians DO NOT lead clean lifestyles buddy; in fact, it's quite the opposite. Statistically gays and lesbians are more inclined to: smoke, drink, do drugs, get multiple body piercings and tattoos, engage with multiple sex partners at one time, etc. Get YOUR facts straight... straight being the operative word.
Well, we both make a good argument for either case, don't we?
No, "we" don't. One argument (mine) is an argument based on reliable scientific information taken from credible sources. The other (yours) is not. Your argument only SEEMS good to you because you are neither well informed, nor--based on your comments below--objective regarding this issue.
That just goes to show me that it's a waste of time to provide you with any citations to satisfy your wooden nickel bet, because you'll just come back with some other cock-eyed retorts and examples to try and prove ME wrong.
Well, guess what...that's how a debate works. You give your sources, I give my sources, and then we let our readers decide whose sources are more reliable and credible. I would suggest that your unwillingness to provide the sources from which you based your opinion is that you know very well that those sources would not stand up to close scrutiny.
This is a battle that can never be won in this manner, because it doesn't come down to who can argue a better case, it comes down to the fact that homosexuality is wrong by God's standard, and the day will come when you will have to face that and be judged accordingly to it.
Actually, it CAN be "won" in this manner because whether you like it or not, it is The Constituiton and not "the bible" which governs the contents of our Laws. As for what may or may not judge me after my death, that argument is meaningless to atheists such as myself. If your ideas have merit, then they shouldn't require you to appeal to the authority of your imaginary friend to make them sound more convincing than they really are.
There is one flaw with this country's constitution which I know well and a love, and that problem is this: It was designed with the faith and assumption that the vast majority of people would have righteous desires in mind,
I disagree. I would suggest that the assumption of our Founding Fathers was rather the understanding that "the vast majority of people" are unlikely to ever agree on what is or is not "righteous," especially in a religious sense, and thus set up a system of government which neither relies upon nor requires any sort of agreement on that point. To quote one of our most prominent Fathers...
and as the vast majority of people become more corrupt and more unrighteous in this country, it will be reflected more and more in our laws until we are ripe for destruction.
Would you perhaps be able to support this supposition with something more substantial than your incredibly subjective opinion?
It has happened to numerous civilizations throughout time. Research it, you so-called scholar! It's called the scriptures! I bet you a wooden nickel that you've never truly read, pondered and prayed about them to know that they are true, and in the end, that's what matters most, not your gay and lesbian rights.
Well, at least you admit that your objections are purely religious. That makes your arguments very easy to dismiss since our Bill of Rights so clearly states...
I would also point out to you that your prediction about my experience in the biblical scriptues. Not only have I read them, I was raised in a VERY christian household, and was instructed from a very early age to study the text of the blible not only spiritually but intellectually. I studied the bible not only as a believer, but as a scholar in college. I have read the bible, cover to cover in English (at least a half-dozen different translations) and almost as thoroughly in the original languages as my limited command of Khone Greek and the several ancient Hebrew and Aramaic dialects of those texts will allow. I will be happy to put my knowledge of the contents of "the bible"--a difficult task to be sure, since even the major christian sects cannot even agree on what texts actually compose that nebulous anthology--against yours any day of the week. It was through that study that I eventually because an atheist. Once one begins to truly study what "the bible" actually says...the brutal violence, the many factual inaccuracies, the internal contradictions, the many politically motivated motivations in the texts...it becomes more and more difficult to look at that book as anything more than an ufortunately popular story book whose biggest fans seem wholly unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
And gays and lesbians DO NOT lead clean lifestyles buddy; in fact, it's quite the opposite. Statistically gays and lesbians are more inclined to: smoke, drink, do drugs, get multiple body piercings and tattoos, engage with multiple sex partners at one time, etc. Get YOUR facts straight... straight being the operative word.
The first thing I would ask is, "how do you define a 'clean' lifestyle?" I would bet another wooden nickel that you couldn't provide us with any objective criteria to define that judgement. My next question would be, "can you provide us with any objective, scientifically credible research to support your suppositions about 'the gay lifestyle'?", which of course would require you (as above) to provide us with a set of objective criteria that would justify defining gay people as having a consistent "lifestyle" to begin with. And finally, I would ask you "even if true, what does ANY of that have to do with the recognition of a basic civil right afforded by the government to its citizens?"
I have said before it many times, and I am sure I will say it again many times again to those who like you seem willing to fling these kinds of baseless judgements at gay people. If you have to make shit up in order to get people to agree with you, then there's something really wrong with your point-of-view.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think that it should be allowed. I have some gay friends too and it's not fair to deny them medical coverage and other benefits of marriage. They are not harming anyone. By the governement interfering in a state matter, they are also intruding on people's privacy. People who are so against it should worry about their own business because homosexuals are not hurting anyone. I personally do not think being gay is right but what right do I have to tell anyone what they can and cannot do in a free country. If people are worried about thierchildren becoming gay as a result of this, they are the ones who are responsible for teaching their children what is right and wrong.
A lot of people oppose homosexuality on the principle that the Bible says it is wrong. Now, I am not too intimately familiar with specific passages in that book, so I'm interested in knowing where people are getting that. Are there specific locations that oppose it?
Yes there are specific locations opposing it in the Bible. I'm not familiar with all of them but here's 2 examples:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal..." - Leviticus 18:22-23
"Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshipped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus recieved in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." - Romans 1:24-27
This is true. The bible also says that we should stone our spouse to death if he sleeps with our mother and that women should be treated like property.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
I think marriage is a personal choice. Governement and religion should no intervene or tell people who they can marry and who they can't.
It should be a state issue until is violates the 14th Amendment -- That no state shall deny or violate any right guarunteed under the Constitution. I live in Texas where we (myself not included -- I voted against) just passed an amendment to our state constitution (which in itself is a bit of a joke because there are more than 200 amendments) defining marraige as between one man and one woman. I feel that this greatly infringes on the rights of gays here in Texas. When our governor, Rick Perry, was questioned on the outcome he stated that if you want to be gay and be married there are other states to live in. How despicable to say!! You have a right to live where you want and conduct your personal life as you see fit. It's a shame that people can't see that this is a form of descrimination.
Gay marrige is legal in Canada. That's where my cousin did it.
It’s not supposed to be a religious issue; it’s supposed to be a public policy issue. Since homosexual behavior is harmful to those who engage in it, supporting or encouraging it is detrimental to the general welfare of society.
Because their sexual behavior, on the whole, does nothing to benefit society. (It does the opposite.)
This is just false. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality has a biological cause. Every single time a claim has been made that a study proved that here is, one of two things has happened:
(a) The author(s) of the study have protested that their work proved no such thing, and that their work was not intended to prove any such thing, and that their work could not have proved any such thing...or
(b) The author(s) of the study have later admitted (under the pressure of peer review) that the data was skewed.
But more importantly: Why would it matter if such a link ever was found? A biological cause doesn’t make any other self-destructive behavior beneficial to the community. Why would it in this case?
How so? The rest of us cannot marry anyone else we might want to either. None of us can marry a close relative, or a young child, or more than one other person not of the same sex. And homosexuals are free to marry a person not of the same sex – and often choose to do so! We all are subject to exactly the same restrictions in (legally recognized) marriage.
Homosexual behavior is harmful to both individuals and society.
Homosexual men die an average of two to three decades earlier than men in general. (Before taxpayers started providing anti-AIDS drugs to them, they were dying several years sooner than that.) That’s understandable when you consider what engaging in anal intercourse on a regular basis would do to a person.
But even lesbians die ten or so years earlier than most women. Why ever that is so, it’s obvious that something harmful is happening here.
Why would any society want to encourage something that drastically reduces people’s lifespan? There is a strong link between longevity and a society’s standards of living. How could a behavior benefit the general welfare if it causes people to die just at the stage of life when most of us become the most productive?
While it is certainly ideal for a man and woman to be in love if they are married, that does not mean that any two people who love each other are married. I love my mother, but she’s married to my father. And in fact I do also love my father... and my brother, and my sisters, and my nieces and nephews – but I’m not married to any of them. (And society would not let me marry any of them even if I wanted to.)
Homosexual behavior is an inherently high-risk lifestyle. And nothing can be done to make it so that it is not. (In spite of what you were told in sex-ed class.) So how could it be good for family values?
Sorry about that. One of my comments on another thread posted twice also. I'll try to figure out what I'm doing to cause that.
That's a really good response. I agree, except I think homosexuality if a biological thing. I think babies are born as homosexuals because I don't believe that they grow up and just decide to become gay. But even if that is the case I still don't support gay marriage.
I think legalizing gay marriage will lead to an increase in the rate of AIDS...maybe not though since there are lots of sexually active homosexuals already. My mom's cousin actually died as a result of getting AIDS from having sex with his male partner.
"I think legalizing gay marriage will lead to an increase in the rate of AIDS...maybe not though since there are lots of sexually active homosexuals already. My mom's cousin actually died as a result of getting AIDS from having sex with his male partner."
Yes, your outstanding evidence of one personal situation leads me to believe that the HIV/AIDS epidemic will be significantly impacted by legalizing gay marriages in the United States.
Logically, in all likelihood, legalizing gay marriage will not have a significant impact on the rate of AIDS in either direction.
Think about it. If two people are committed to each other and remain faithful, how can they transmit the disease to anyone else? Even if one person has HIV/AIDS before the marriage the partners will probably talk about the issue beforehand.
Also, there are a lot of sexually active hetereosexuals that have HIV. To prevent the spread of HIV, let's ban heterosexual marriage as well.
There are more effective ways to curb the rate of HIV/AIDS than blocking the legalization of gay marriage.
1.) Encourage Comprehensive Sex Education over Abstinence Only Until Marriage Sex Education
2.) Educate about the details of HIV/AIDS -- how it actually can or can't be transmitted.
3.) Take more action against the use of intravenous drugs.
4.) Increase accessibility to testing centers.
5.) Increase research to find a cure or better vaccines for the disease.
Instead of going after gay marriage, it would be best to take constructive action to prevent HIV/AIDS.
Here are some helpful sites for reference and activism:
1.) www.worldaidsday.org -- British Website that has information about World AIDS Day as well as statistical information
2.) www.aidspartnership.org -- a Michigan organization with helpful information on how to help fight AIDS
3.) http://www.unicef.org/uniteforchildren/ -- Help fight HIV/AIDS in the favor of children worldwide.
"Yes, your outstanding evidence of one personal situation leads me to believe that the HIV/AIDS epidemic will be significantly impacted by legalizing gay marriages in the United States."
-The reason I worte that was because people on this site seem to think I don't know any gays and have not been affected by things like this in my life. But I have.
"Encourage Comprehensive Sex Education over Abstinence Only Until Marriage Sex Education"
Your position is not supported by any of the available data. It is a fact that abstinence education is the only type that is shown to be effective in the prevention of AIDS or any other STD. It is also a fact that abstinence is the ONLY 100% guaranteed method for NOT contracting a disease through sex. All standard sex education does is give the kids reasons to not behave as they should, and offer them a false sense of security. Standard sex ed is probably one of the biggest causes in the rise of STDs and teen pregnancies.
"If two people are committed to each other and remain faithful, how can they transmit the disease to anyone else?"
That's a nice theory. Unfortunately, statistics show that gays are not faithful as a rule, even when in a so-called "marriage".
Few "gay" relationships last longer than two years, with many homosexual men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. Source: Pollack, M. " Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A.Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, N.J., Jason Aronsons Inc., 1991), pp.124-25.
50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.
Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
There are many more sources, but you get the idea. The simple truth is that making marriage available is not going to change this. All this will do is alter marriage, to the detriment of society.
"Also, there are a lot of sexually active heterosexuals that have HIV. To prevent the spread of HIV, let's ban heterosexual marriage as well." (spelling corrected)
That's not even logical; this occurs with sex outside of marriage, in most cases. Yet another reason to teach abstinence. Your idea of teaching "safe sex" is what got us where we are now.
A cure is not the solution, though one is needed. The solution is to STOP the spread of the disease.
"Encourage Comprehensive Sex Education over Abstinence Only Until Marriage Sex Education"
Your position is not supported by any of the available data. It is a fact that abstinence education is the only type that is shown to be effective in the prevention of AIDS or any other STD.
Factually incorrect. Here are the links to two of the most extensive and recent studies (and congressional reports) comparing the effectiveness of comprehensive sex-ed programs to the effectiveness of abstinence-only education...
THE CONTENT OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ABSTINENCE-ONLY
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs Final Report
Both of these studies clearly document the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education, and the findings of these reports are consistent with the official positions of virtually all of the major professional associations in the relevant fields of scientific study (such as the the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, LINK).
It is also a fact that abstinence is the ONLY 100% guaranteed method for NOT contracting a disease through sex.
That's true. The problem however is that abstinence-only education programs have proved themselves ineffective in convincing the students subjected to the to actually refrain from having sex.
All standard sex education does is give the kids reasons to not behave as they should,
This comment is actually very telling. What we can see from this statement is that the prevention of STD's isn't your primary goal for teaching abstinence-only. Instead, we can see that what you are REALLY worried about is how these kids are behaving...in other words, you're making a value-judgment about that behavior and it is the behavior itself rather than the consequence of the behavior that is motivating your opinion and informing your methods. That's why abstinence-only education fails to work. Comprehensive sex education is designed to prevent negative ends...STD infections, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Abstinence-only education is designed to force a moral value onto its students.
and offer them a false sense of security. Standard sex ed is probably one of the biggest causes in the rise of STDs and teen pregnancies.
The evidence clearly shows that it is the advocates of abstinence-only education that are the ones suffering under a false sense of security.
For example...
BASED ON THE RESEARCH, COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE AT STOPPING THE SPREAD OF HIV INFECTION, SAYS APA COMMITTEE
Research Shows That Abstinence-Only Programs Have Limited Effectiveness And Unintended Consequences
The rest of your claims are similarly spurious, and scientifically unfounded.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
these are the comments that i hear everyday. Not all homosexuals have AIDS or anyother STD for that matter.
Homosexual behavior is NOT inherently high-risk.
What is risky about two woman sleeping together in a manogomous relationship??
Two women can be exclusive sex partners and live a life that is not inherently risky.
You are wrong.
Homosexual behavior is NOT inherently high-risk.
What is risky about two woman sleeping together in a manogomous relationship??
Two women can be exclusive sex partners and live a life that is not inherently risky.
You are wrong.
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21635542-5005940,00.html
There is one link to prove you are mistaken.
I've beaten the odds! Still a lesbian. Still hot. Still have a peer group full of people who take their health seriously. Times they are a changin.
There are other studies that counter this one little news blip with evidence that lesbians receive inadequate health care for a variety of reasons, which contributes to unhealthy food and exercise habits. If I thought you would listen to them, I'd spend the time looking for them and would post them here. Since I know you will just dismiss them out of hand, I am going to go to bed instead, and will snuggle up to my partner, who is also not obese.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I believe the subject of the discussion was focused on STD's, and the last time I checked, obesity wasn't an STD. That's what we call a disingenuous evasion, or "shell game" response.
In fact, lesbians have lower rates of infection that heterosexual women for most STD's. For example, lesbians have a 0% rate of occurrence of HIV infection contracted through same-sex intercourse. That's a bit better than heterosexual women, who make up more than 25% of our country's HIV+ population.
In any case, it is ridiculous to try to say that people get infected with sexually transmitted diseases because of who they are. People get infected with HIV because they are exposed to the virus and become infected. Besides...if they did, it wouldn't help your argument since the vast majority of HIV infections worldwide are found in heterosexual victims.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Wow, I don't even know where to start. First, can you prove that homosexuality is a high-risk lifestyle? After you do that (I won't hold my breath) I'd love for you to show me what "family values" are. Hate? Intolerance? Placing Judgment?
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
How is homosexuality harmful to anyone?!?!
In addition, gay couples can provide many positives to society. They cannot procreate together, but they are prime for adopting children. Plus they could bear children through a surrogate/artificial insemination. And you can't tell me that married couples don't swing or invite other persons into their sexual lives. So what is the difference between a promiscous married couple and a committed gay couple??
The link between biology and homosexuality is important because it proves that becoming homosexual is not a choice. It would be the same as being born a certain race. Although there are no definitive studies (which I take you word on) that prove such, have you ever spoken to a gay person about how they "became" gay? I grew up a tomboy and by 16, all of my girlfriends were dating each other. I was the only straight one left. And every single one of them knew (and so did I) well before the exposed their feelings. They had ALWAYS liked women over men, since before sexuality was even an issue. It went back as far as they can remember. So how can you say that being homosexual is a choice?
Can you explain to me what having anal sex on a regular basis would do to me? And why it will make me die earlier??
Did you ever consider a biological link between homosexuality and the average life span? It can't be a life style issue because on average gay couples make over $70,000 annually while heterosexual couples only average $42,000 annually. So gay couples are doing at least one thing much better than the average hetero-couples.
Despite the high risk you speak of there is no reason to discriminate against them as a group.
Homosexuality harms the people involved if they are having sex. Anal sex makes it sooo much easier to transmit AIDS. That's why you could die earlier.
Is anyone saying a promiscuous married couple is doing the right thing? No. They are also have a big health risk.
Gay couples probably make more money because with many heterosexual couples only one partner works while the other is often times a stay at home mom or dad. If both people in the gay relationship work then obviously they would be earning more money....but what does income even have to do with anything?
You're right - we shouldn't discriminate against them. But not allowing gay marriage isn't discrimination. Marriage is for a man and a woman...not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It would be wrong to be unaccepting of gay people, though.
If discriminating people based on gender isn't discrimination, then what is? Also, you mentioned promiscuous married couples, but what about committed married couples that just like to have anal sex? Should they not be married because they enjoy anal sex? Should people who smoke, drink, drive over the speed limit, or fly not be allowed marriage because they are at a higher risk than others?
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
Any sex makes it easy to transmit AIDS. And let's not forget that homosexual men are NOT the only one's having anal sex. Many straight couples indulge as well and they can still marry -- so how is sexual behavior justifiable as an outlet for discrimination?
How is denying any two people to marry not discrimination????????
Any way you look at it you are suppressing the rights of an individuals free choice to live life as they want.
And the statistic I quoted included single-income households and dual-income households regardless of children. It has been found that most families have to have two working individuals just to get to the $40,000 mark. And I am sure that many gay individuals support their spouses as well.
Actually, there are more straight couples that practice anal sex than gay couples.
The problem with marriage however, is that many people do not honor it's sanctity anymore. With the increasing divource rate, people are now looking at marraige as some kind of game. Marriage should perhaps be removed from religion and become more of a goverment issue since there are many people that just marry for the tax benefits.
Then do you also think polygamy should be legal? Do you think 5 year olds should be able to marry? Because these things can also be misconstrued and discrimination.
As for polygamy, I don't think that should be legal. It would cause so many problems with the economy, insurance, etc. Insurance companies usually cover spouses, but they couldn't possibly do that if a person had multiple spouses. I obviously disagree with it for other reasons, too, but that is also a concern.
Polygamy and the marriage of children are completely different issues! How can you possibly compare same-sex marriage with that of multiple spouses or child molestation?????
But for my personal view on these two issues...
- For polygamy, most reports I have read conclude that if allowed it could severly hurt the male population, especially in countries where the male population is significantly greater than the female (like India). Allowing 10% of men to take an extra wife denies 10% of men the ability to find a wife. By allowing same-sex marriage, on the other hand, you don't soak up any specific section of the public. In the US only approximately 3% of its citizens are homosexual. This is a number that seems almost constant among all species in general -- because homosexual partnering occurs NATURALLY in ALL animals, not just humans. Back to polygamy -- you must also consider the economics. In our country, marriage garners you benefits and tax deductions. By allowing a person to take additional partners you are in essence denying the "left over" persons (generally males because it is very uncommon in polygamists societies to have a female with more than one husband) their ability to have these benefits and tax deductions.
As for the marriage of children -- that is absolutely absurd. We all know that people change over time. Even in the 3 years since I graduated college, I am totally different from the person who I was then. A child needs to grow and mature and get to know themselves before committing to another person.
"child molestation?????"
-Well I wouldn't call it that. In many cultures little kids are married...and not molested. I'm not saying I think that's right, but some people fight that it's discrimination to have marriage age limits.
"because homosexual partnering occurs NATURALLY in ALL animals, not just humans."
-You say that like I don't agree about that, but I do agree that it's natural. The homosexual desires just shouldn't be acted upon.
And how do you suppose we deny our NATURAL INSTINCT. It is completely inhumane to demand a person to deny their natural instincts and live an unfulfilled, lonely life, always wanting the one thing they are told they should never have! It is that very idea that makes homosexual teens want to commit suicide. Would you rather perpetuate unhappiness or realize that people are allowed to fulfill their natural instincts?
There are many natural instincts that we can't just give in to.
-Sexual desires: it would be foolish to just go around having sex with people all the time just to fulfill those desires. Sex is a special thing. And even if you don't believe in staying chaste until marriage, you still have to agree that sex is special and you won't just sleep with someone you've just met, or someone who just looks handsome. It's more than that.
-Hunger: If you eat too much and become a glutton, you'll get fat, be unhealthy, etc.
-Greed: It seems that human nature makes people greedy. You see it everyday. So many people want to be more wealthy than their neighbors. But you have to control youself.
Nobody should give into the desires they feel just because they're "natural."
"It is that very idea that makes homosexual teens want to commit suicide."
-Depression is what leads most teens to commit suicide. And there are definitely tons of heterosexual teen who commit suicide. Now if I don't ever get married, I will never have sex, so with your theory, I guess I'll be lonely and commit suicide. I guess i have more faith in teens than you do. So many homosexuals find God and know that He is the only true love.
As for sexual desires -- even in strict religions, sex is allowed! I am talking about denying a person the right to fulfilling sex, the kind you have ONLY when you are truly in love with your partner. This is not about frivilous sex, and it is very upsetting that you equate homosexuality with only frivilous sex (as your post implies). This entire post is in the context of marriage to begin with. You are not only denying homosexuals the bond of intimate relations, but also the ability to proclaim their love for each other and receive GOVT benefits that have NOTHING to do with your particular religion.
If you try to say that sex was meant only for procreation, then why do women have a clitoris? It has no other function than sexual stimulation and pleasure. Forcing a homosexual to only "procreate" denies them the bond with another than only intimacy can bring.
It is NOT natural to eat after you are full. It is actually quite painful to gorge on food. I am not saying that people don't over-eat, but that the act of over-eating is NOT natural.
There is nothing wrong with wealth if you work hard and earn it. Now as for those whose greed overwhelms them to the point of hurting another (i.e. stealing) -- it is illegal based on secular morality -- the idea that in a civilized country you cannot infringe on the rights of another for any reasons.
In truth, fighting issues like homosexual marriage go AGAINST the idea of secular morality. You are physically oppressing a sect of the population. And the reason? An old book told you so. Hmmm.... Sounds pretty unreasonable, selfish, and unchristian-like.
She gave you my favorite circular argument against gay marriage/sex/rights:
"You shouldn't have sex before marriage; you can't get married, so you can't have sex. See? Simple! So if you have sex, because it is outside the institution of marriage we fight hard to deny you, it will always be an immoral act."
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I don't agree at all. My freshman year in college I was fresh off a long term relationship and I had a lot of sex. I had one night stands, I slept with guy friends when I got drunk...I'm not overly proud of it, but I wouldn't change it. And you know what, now I'm with my boyfriend for over a year and sex with us is just as good, meaningful, and intimate. It wasn't always "special" when I was a freshman but it was fun and was something I felt I needed to experience and do. So no, I don't "have to agree that sex is special and you shouldn't just go sleep with someone you think is handsome". I did that a few times, and sex for me still has meaning when I want it to have meaning.
I agree. Lovemaking and sex are two different things.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
"you still have to agree that sex is special and you won't just sleep with someone you've just met, or someone who just looks handsome. It's more than that."
Eh, that's not always the case. I'm sure there's people on here that have had one night stands before, since we know that one night stands happen. As for the looking handsome part, I wouldn't have sex with someone that wasn't handsome to me.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
"The homosexual desires just shouldn't be acted upon"
Then they shouldn't have been created in someone in the FIRST place. This would make God nothing more than a cruel asshole if he indeed was responsible for this and it was indeed a "sin". Thankfully many people are waking up to the much more plausible idea that it is simply of no moral importance whatsoever and people should be free to be who they are.
Not allowing a 5 year old to marry is not discrimination because 5 year olds are not yet full citizens and do not contribute to society. Therefore, they do not have full legal standing or rights.
I don't see a problem with polygamy, as long as the parties involved are two consenting adults. Insurance companies have no issue with covering more than one child, so why would they have a problem with more than one spouse? the parties involved are responsible for payment, anyways.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
Consider the difference between a motive to believe something is true, and an actual reason to believe it.
Really? Homosexuality only manifests itself through behavior and attitude. What behaviors and attitudes are inherent in race?
And how many people do you know who were members of a certain race, but now belong to a different race? A lot of people used to be homosexual or lesbian, but no longer are. People who not only changed their behavior, but also their feelings, attitudes, outlook...
And as far as a biological link being relevant goes, allow me to repeat myself:
Why would it matter if such a link ever was found? A biological cause doesn’t make any other self-destructive behavior beneficial to the community. Why would it in this case?
But it is a very good reason not to encourage the behavior by according it the same privileged status that marriage enjoys in our culture.
Allow me to repeat myself again:
We all are subject to exactly the same restrictions in (legally recognized) marriage.
That is in no way discriminatory.
Five points:
1.) Let's be perfectly clear: Gay marriage supporters are not upset because the law treats them differently because they are homosexual; they are upset because the law treats them exactly the same despite the fact that they are homosexual. They are treated exactly the same under the law as everyone else, with the exact same freedoms and restrictions, and that's what bothers them.
2.) Marriage exists for three things:
1 - To provide a place for sexual gratification
2 - To provide a way for two people to express their love for one another
3 - To provide for a place to conceive, give birth to, and raise children
Only the third one is any business of the government.
3.) The earlier reader is right that we shouldn't regard gay marriage as the only thing that is destroying marriage. A high rate of divorce, a high rate of absent fathers, and a culture that encourages faux marriages like Britney Spears getting hitched overnight in Las Vegas. All of these things hurt marriage as an institution, but I fail to see how changing its definition at this point will help improve it. There is more to do, to be sure; and we have to be careful that while we oppose same-sex marriage, we don't blame all the problems that marriage has on gays and lesbians.
4.) A lot of the practical issues involved with this debate (hospital visitation, joint tax filing, etc.) can easily be resolved by enacting legislation that allows any co-habitating people to apply for these things. I think you'd find few who oppose it, and it wouldn't have a negative effect on marriage at all.
5.) Finally, what needs to be remembered is that at the very center of this debate is the institution of marriage itself; the ultimate cornerstone of human civilization. All cultures in human history (except for one, possibly, they haven't verified yet) have established some sort of institution in which men and women are brought together in order to procreate and raise children. Marriage in Western society has always been an exclusive union of one man and one woman, for the purpose of starting a family. The enaction of same-sex marriage will effectively change society's view of marriage to that of a place simply for love and sexual gratification between two people, to the detriment of our children. Society should reflect before taking such perilous action.
It is only in the past few centuries that marriage between one man and one woman has been valid.
In the past, even in Biblical times, marriage has been one man and as many women as he could afford.
Nowhere in the basis of humanity was marriage ever between one man and one woman.
Beyond that, it is only in the very recent past that marriage has been anything other than ownership of that one woman.
Women's rights have not been long in standing, and most men were very upset at the fact that they were losing control over that posession that the government guaranteed them.
In addition to that, Biblical terms were quoted in order to keep slavery legal.
I do not listen to the Bible Thumpers anymore simply because there is always a "cause" - and only after the fact to people begin to see that there are some very wrong interpretations of the book that Christians live by.
visit my blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rainbowcharmer
Good choice in not listening anymore. Anything can be supported with the bible if someone wants to.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
Excellent analysis there, and correct. I already responded to one of your repliers further down, but wanted to be sure you know that there are those that agree with you. "Progressive" should not mean tossing out what is good simply for the purpose of "change". A hostile takeover of this country would be change, but I don't think that's what most people want (I say most because I have doubts as to the intentions of some running for office...)