Daisho Con

Alhon wrote:Why should any belief, period, decide what the government does, religious or not? Your question simply demands this response.

Exactly. The belief that homosexuality is wrong is not justification for taking their rights away. Given the choice between freedom and oppression, I prefer that the government choose freedom.

And the belief that Homosexuality is right and normal is not justification for destroying marriage to the 60% of Wisconsin who believes that Marriage is between 1 Man and 1 Woman (2006 Wisconsin Marriage Amendment resolution).

We can play this game forever, going back and forth. It still will boil down to your belief vs. mine, where we both think the other person is wrong.
I stated my reason, and I simply request that you respect it. You don't have to agree with me, and I'm not trying to "convert" you, I'm just trying to provide a bit of the other side of the argument.

Out of curiousity Alhon, what about homosexual marriage destroys it for those participating in a heterosexual marriage? Is it the idea that it takes away the sanctity or that it makes it less sacred?

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in the world.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Alhon wrote:We can play this game forever, going back and forth. It still will boil down to your belief vs. mine, where we both think the other person is wrong.
I stated my reason, and I simply request that you respect it. You don't have to agree with me, and I'm not trying to "convert" you, I'm just trying to provide a bit of the other side of the argument.

No.

I do not respect intolerance and you have yet to offer an pro-intolerance argument that I can respect. As I do not recognize the existence of your god, simply saying "because God says so" is not a defense for acts of hatred.

@ 1stAgent: Where have I ever mentioned I hate gay people? I don't believe I've said that anywhere on here...

When did this become about intolerance? People have said that they support Gay Marriage, I said I don't. I gave my reasons, and you refuse to accept them. I can't say anything more, because there's nothing more to say. I am Christian, God's Word says it is a sin, therefore I do not condone it. That's all the reasoning I need, and if you can't accept that, then I'm sorry.

Part of being a Geek is being outcast for your personal likes/dislikes and beliefs.... and here I see it happening again. Actually, it's pretty funny in an ironic sense.


@SpittinWheelie: Close. It's not so much the sanctity of marriage, as the word "Sanctify" means "To Make Holy". Marriage is not one of the Sacraments (at least by my Lutheran teachings) as Marriage neither gives Forgiveness nor was instituted by Christ (it was instituted by the Father at the garden of Eden).

Just a quick terminology thing.

Anyway, it's more the idea that Marriage is a glorious thing that God gave to a man and his wife. Marriage between two men or two women is a perversion of the beauty of Marriage, kinda like comparing Star Wars to the infamous Turkish Star Wars knockoff (Go watch on youtube. ) Using this metaphor, legalizing Gay marriage would be similar to saying that Turkish Star Wars was just as important, just as impressive, and just as award-worthy as George Lucas' Star Wars.

At least, I think that makes sense.... my brain is kinda fried right now because I'm trying to make sense of object serialization in C# right now. ><

If I told you the government shouldn't work off any belief but just proven fact what would you say?

As for that, from what I remember, and I'm asking a friend to look into it, The bible does not in fact say Homosexuality is a sin. It claims Sodomy is in the Old Testament, but from what I remember of my Christian Youth the old testament's rules are largely meaningless, otherwise I'd be in trouble for eating Ham and owning Gecko's. So I would like Specific passages from the New Testament that prove your point.

I have the right to demand this based upon the fact that you are claiming the bible as a source, but haven't used it. Meanwhile the rest of us are arguing based off our own personal philosophies.

@Aminar: Thank you for calling out my lack of Scripture, as I have now provided. I am sorry to say, though, that the Word does in fact condemn homosexuality.

You are true that many of the Old Testament Laws (the Jewish Ceremonial laws) were thrown out, because Christ fulfilled them with his death and resurrection, Fulfilling the Old Testament Prophecies and promises.

Here, Romans 1:18-31 (NIV)

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Emphasis Mine. I left in the entire section so that you have a little context around the verse. But as explicitly stated in vvs. 26-27, homosexuality is condemned.

Again, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

However, not all hope is lost, as those who are truly repentant for their sins, including that of the sin of Homosexuality, have forgiveness through Christ Jesus our Lord. When Christ died for all of the sins of the whole world, he gained forgiveness for homosexual deeds, for homosexual desires, and for the inborn sinful nature that produces these sins.

1 Corinthians 6:11

11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Now, what is the definition of indecent acts or homosexual offense?

(Random ? as well, and I'll look this up later myself, what do other translations have to say on the meaning?)

My point is, the bible is so vague we cannot hope to interpret it well enough to say it's wrong. Heck, I could look at that and say that he is in fact referring to the common practice of homosexual adultery, because sex is only sanctified in a marriage bed.

I'm admittedly twisting things alot, but that is part of my job as the "devil's advocate" here" I'm all for removing marriage entirely from the US legal system, legalizing homosexual marriage pushes that one step further away, and is therefore against what I think should happen too.

I believe that's found in the Romans verse I quoted:

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It doesn't matter if it's in or out of a "marriage", it's a perversion.

And I don't believe that it's that vague, I think it's the sinful nature in all of us asking "Did God really say?" even though he did, in fact, say. The Word is very specific, as it is here. I'm not sure how to address the vagueness other than: Read it. It doesn't get vague really outside of some of the symbolism, and here Paul isn't being symbolic at all. He's telling it like it is.

I'm gonna put my two-cents worth into this discussion.

I suppose that, yes, technically homosexuality is against the Bible, and therefore people think that gay marriage is wrong. I will respect people's opinions. But in my opinion, Christians rallying to get rid of gay marriage is like Jewish people rallying to ban the consumption of ham. Sure, it's against their beliefs, but not everyone agrees that. Therefore, we don't outlaw it.

In the end, someone is always going to disagree. It's like that with every law that is made in this country. You can't please everyone.

I would understand if the law would force people to do something they didn't want to do, but this doesn't. All it does is give people more options. I just don't see anything wrong with it.

That's my two-cents worth.

@Neko: Very nice response. True that this country was built that way, and it's just part of the nature of the US. Shoud Gay Marriage be legalized... so be it. I won't like it, and I would never partake in it, but I will respect our government should they decide in that manner.

+Rep for a good response.

If we're applying all the new testament in government, then Hillary really had no chance at presidency.

King James: 1 Timothy 2:11-14

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

EDIT: Sorry, fixed in the quotes.

I asked my Best friend what her argument would be here, simply because I've been argueing from a point of view closer to hers, IE Strongly Christian while in support of Gay Marriage. This was her reply.

Amiable Thief (3:36:36 PM): Romans 1:25 - "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and
served created things rather than the Creator...Because of this, God gave them over
to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In
the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Amiable Thief (3:37:11 PM): 1 Corinthians 6:9 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor
drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

....Alright, dang...but, there are laws against adultery (kind of) and prostitution (sort
of) and theiving-
Amiable Thief (3:38:08 PM): and...uh, being greedy (...<.< and being drunk (more of a social faux pax) and swindling, so there should be a law against being gay! u_u And
everyone can uphold all those laws!

Amiable Thief (3:38:43 PM): Matthew 5:28 - "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

...Are you f***ing kidding me, Jebus?? I mean...I see hot girls all the time! But lusting after them for only a millisecond is okay, right?....Right?...You can't put me in the same boat as those other guys!

Amiable Thief (3:42:30 PM): Well, Billy, the moral here is that, yes, the Bible says homosexuality will condemn you to hell. So do a lot of things. But nowhere does he say to whine and bitch so much about it when there are many more important issues to address. You may dislike homosexuals - I respect that. And you can damn them - I respect that too. But you should still view them as individuals with individuals rights. The only thing that will taint marriage as an institution (other than adultery, spousal abuse, neglect, divorce, etc. which are already rampant) is if some little fondle longingly go and ordain that some people can get married, while others can't. Bullcrap. It is a right that every individual should be able to enjoy, if they are lucky enough to have found someone to enjoy it with.
Amiable Thief (3:45:18 PM): (btw sodomy is still a "sexually immoral"...but not if you're married!)

Alhon wrote:You believe I am wrong because religion is fallible. I believe you are wrong because human reason is fallible.

I'm taking your definition of fallible to mean falsifiable, or able to be proven wrong. Religion is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is the idea that something can be proven wrong. This is a good property of science, as we use it to test hypotheses and disprove ideas that are wrong. Religion cannot be proven wrong. The idea that there is a Invisible Pink Unicorn is not fallible. If you tried to prove it wrong, I would come back with a property of the Unicorn that goes against your theory. Same with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The problem with things that aren't falsifiable is that there is no empirical reason to believe in them. I believe in gravity, as it is scientifically testable. I believe in evolution, due to it's scientific rigor (theory in scientific terms has differing definitions than common usage in society). You don't believe in differing religions, despite the evidence provided in their holy books (i.e. the Koran). The same holds true for other religions.

Why should we follow this logic into condemning gay marriage?

Maybe the problem with my argument is that I shouldn't use falsifiability instead of fallibility. Regarding this, if either religion of human reason could be wrong, why should I choose religious doctrine instead of the human one?

Alhon wrote:And the belief that Homosexuality is right and normal is not justification for destroying marriage to the 60% of Wisconsin who believes that Marriage is between 1 Man and 1 Woman (2006 Wisconsin Marriage Amendment resolution).

I don't understand how marriage is being destroyed. It seems like marriage is being defined as a club, and others aren't invited. I don't see a problem defining marriage as two people that love each other. I don't see a reason to take the privileges of two people in love away, regardless of orientation.

Alhon wrote:We can play this game forever, going back and forth. It still will boil down to your belief vs. mine, where we both think the other person is wrong.
I stated my reason, and I simply request that you respect it. You don't have to agree with me, and I'm not trying to "convert" you, I'm just trying to provide a bit of the other side of the argument.

That's fine, and I definitely respect your opinion. I respect even more that you are sharing it. Hopefully, however, we can continue to debate this issue politely. Even if we never reach an agreed-upon conclusion, I think it is helpful for all of us to share our opinions on the issue so people have the most substance to think about. Seriously, thank you thank you thank you.

Alhon wrote:Anyway, it's more the idea that Marriage is a glorious thing that God gave to a man and his wife.

Would you agree that this means that people that do not accept God should not have the right to marry? Or is that a stretch on my part?