Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage

[NintendoExpert89]

No, I was saying what was considered "blasphemous" then isn't now, because our understanding of the world has significantly changed. So why shouldn't our understanding of homosexuality change as well? And don't respond with the cheap "well then rape and [long list of taboos] will have to be condoned also."

[Turtlekid1]

And I was saying that the rules don't change because our understanding of the world does.

[The Chef]

According to your religion.

According to the rest of us, it does. Now quit acting like you're right by default, friggin' Bible-belter. |:\

[CrossEyed7]

There's not really anywhere in the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Turtlekid1, Leviticus also says not to eat shellfish and/or pork...do you take that seriously?

The difference being that God specifically told Peter to do otherwise later on.

(long rant that assumes the Bible is not divinely inspired)

The rules don't change because our understanding of the world does.

According to your religion.

According to the rest of us, it does. Now quit acting like you're right by default, friggin' Bible-belter. |:\

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

Summary: Weegee, Turtlekid, and PL were debating whether or not the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. NE89 says that the Bible shouldn't guide morals because of an unstated, unsupported assumption that neither Weegee nor Turtlekid (nor PL, until a few days ago) hold. Turtlekid essentially says as much, and Chef says that Turtlekid needs to STFU about the Bible and stop assuming things.

Am I the only one who sees this?

I don't like this board very much.

[nensondubois]

No, I see it too but I tend to keep quiet.

[PaperLuigi]

As much as I disagree with him, I have to commend Turtlekid1. He sticks firm to his beliefs and is basically arguing against the entire board.

He's even arguing against some Christians too, and he's not resorting to name calling.

[Weegee]

Definite "sin". One person's morals may not be the same as another's.

Claiming that goodness and truth are subjective is something that anyone with a functional conscience should absolutely abhor.

[The Chef]

"Goodness" and "truth" are such vague concepts it's kinda hard to abhor anything.

[Glorb]

Using advanced chemistry, I have distilled this entire board into this:

Person: The  bible is wrong about (X) thing.
Turtlekid: No, the bible is right because (X).
Person 2: No, that's wrong because there's no proof.
Turtlekid: No, because the bible is always right.
Person 3: The bible also condoned (X).
Turtlekid: There's no proof.
People 1-3: JUST HAVE MY OPINIONS ALREADY

[Lizard Dude]

"Truth" is probably objective.

"Goodness" is definitely subjective.

[Chupperson Weird]

The problem here is that neither side of this argument puts forth anywhere near a convincing debate. Furthermore, as we all know, Turtlekid is not going to even consider reading opposing posts with even a hint of consideration, so what real point is there in having a debate? Some people think they are automatically right and do not grasp the concept of new knowledge, so what's the point?

[Weegee]

Turtlekid is simply standing for what he knows to be true, and for that I commend him as well.

[Turtlekid1]

No one is having a debate to have their views changed.  They're having a debate to uphold their existing beliefs.

[ShadowBrain]

The problem here is that neither side of this argument puts forth anywhere near a convincing debate.

If they could, this argument would've ended about 2000 years ago.

[Nintendoobsessed]

I'm not gay, but this is part of the reason I became atheist. The Bible condemns things that cannot be helped, such as homosexuality. Things weren't understood as well back then.