Fungi Forums

Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: NintendoExpert89 on September 22, 2008, 10:27:05 PM

Title: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on September 22, 2008, 10:27:05 PM
This has come up several times before, but what are your views on homosexuality?

Personally, I have mixed views. I tolerate and accept homosexuality as part of our culture, but I still have an underlying discomfort. The same could be said for others as well. For example, a friend of mine's view was "I have no problems with gays, as long as they don't 'do it' right in front of me." In other words, we're both fine with people embracing their homosexuality in their lives, because that's what living life is about– doing what you wish to satisfy your needs and lifestyle, no one has any say in what you can do within your own life. It doesn't bother me if people do things I may disagree with, but I do feel discomfort if their views or behavior is forced on me.

For example, a friend of mine was attending a literature meeting and listening to various readings. One author (my Creative Writing teacher) was gay, and so his personal essay's content was what some may find questionable. Considerably many were uncomfortable, but they put up with it. However, they were also told to ask questions regarding the essay's content, and weren't allowed to leave until they did so. That, I do not think is right. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, but being forced to participate in something that makes you uncomfortable is another thing altogether.

I'm not sure what else to say, but overall, I accept homosexuality as part of society. Even as a Catholic I don't see it as "evil" or an "abomination." If same-sex marriages take place, it doesn't bother me for there are no negative effects upon my own lifestyle or choices. But like most I do feel a bit of discomfort now and then, but that's my own problem.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on September 22, 2008, 10:38:50 PM
I tolerate them as human beings. I don't like homosexuality in general, but it is their choice and I'm not supposed to judge them. They are free to do as they wish as long as they don't try and make a huge deal about it (*coughChrisCrockercough*).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 22, 2008, 10:53:35 PM
Considering how disturbing it'd be if anybody "did it" right in front of me, I don't have that underlying discomfort. Gay people are just people who could be described as "sexually defective" (which makes total sense if you go by the idea that all living things exist to work, reproduce and die) but big deal. And what about people who choose to live their lives without starting families? They're just as unproductive, but not discriminated against only because of this paranoia of gay people being mindless animals who would rape anyone of the same gender they pleased. Yep, paranoia--a disorder. Though I can't say it is baseless, as many of the accusers of such behavior really don't think about anything but sex, therefore might assume everyone has that same obsession.

That being said the government really has no business controlling the matter. How far away are we from real equality? Black people, check, women, check, gay people, not yet...*

As for how I think this mingles with religion... I was Catholic. Now I'm just plain ol' Christian with my own moral codes and my own ideas of what God is like. I don't think He'd want me to follow other people's hearts anyway. I don't think God would create gay people if they truly were to be condemned. And that's right, I believe that sexual orientation is not something your environment affects, but an instinct you're born with. Like taste. Vidgmchtr likes Burger King. I hate Burger King, but I don't care if he eats there. Vid could force himself to not eat at Burger King to comply with the paranoid people who don't tolerate eating there, but he won't actually stop liking it.

*And I know, I'm kidding myself if I think that all races of men and women are already treated equally.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Uvaz on September 22, 2008, 11:12:09 PM
Hey I know a gay dude that is always like "Omg tolerate me" "Omg you are such an homophobic" for no reason at all, but he is also always "Emo sucks", "Pokemon sucks", "Pokemon is for keedees" "Nerds sucks" "Pokemon is for kiddy nerds" "Megaman sucks and so does anyone who likes it" etc. Troo fax.

But my opinion on the matter? I think I tolerate them (The guy I mentioned above is one of my friends), but don't really think it's ok. I also really don't want to see them making out there in the open (Except if they are two or more girls ) : )

I think if they let homosexuals marry, they should also let people marry their own sons or their parents, and their pets and the TV. Ok that was stupid exaggeration, but if gays can marry you may not want to think about what would be the next kind new marriage :o

PS:Sorry if this post isn't serious enough.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 22, 2008, 11:16:59 PM
No offense, but that post was the exact definition of ignorance.

Comparing video game fans and lame subcultures to broad groups of people who suffer discrimination and hate crimes on a daily basis doesn't work. Neither does the insanely tired argument of "omh if gays marry than donkeys and robots will mary 2!!!".
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 23, 2008, 06:33:34 AM
I will say this only once (unless I'm inclined to say it again):  Homosexuality is perversion.

If same-sex marriages take place, it doesn't bother me for there are no negative effects upon my own lifestyle or choices.

No, just on the morality of the already morally-drained country we live in.

1. That being said the government really has no business controlling the matter. How far away are we from real equality? Black people, check, women, check, gay people, not yet...*

As for how I think this mingles with religion... I was Catholic.  2. Now I'm just plain ol' Christian with my own moral codes and my own ideas of what God is like. I don't think He'd want me to follow other people's hearts anyway. I don't think God would create gay people if they truly were to be condemned.   3. And that's right, I believe that sexual orientation is not something your environment affects, but an instinct you're born with. Like taste. Vidgmchtr likes Burger King. I hate Burger King, but I don't care if he eats there. Vid could force himself to not eat at Burger King to comply with the paranoid people who don't tolerate eating there, but he won't actually stop liking it.

1. Being born black or a woman isn't something you can change (or shouldn't be, but there's just another example of how perverted our society is).

2. You have your own moral code and idea of what God is like?  Define "Christian."

3. So is being an alcoholic, and yet there are AA meetings across the country because alcoholism is something that can be overcome.  People can make a choice to overcome their inclinations, not because they're "complying with the paranoid people," but because it's the right thing to do.

No offense, but that post was the exact definition of ignorance.

Comparing video game fans and lame subcultures to broad groups of people who suffer discrimination and hate crimes on a daily basis doesn't work. Neither does the insanely tired argument of "omh if gays marry than donkeys and robots will mary 2!!!".

Is it really so insane and illogical to believe that perversion will lead to more perversion?

...well, I don't think I made too many new friends with this post.  But that's what I think, presented as civilly as possible.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 23, 2008, 07:31:48 AM
I accept them. It's not their fault, after all. Yeah, I don't want to see gay guys making out, but neither do I really want to see heterosexuals couples do the same.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on September 23, 2008, 08:44:23 AM
Is it really so insane and illogical to believe that perversion will lead to more perversion?
That's like saying that tolerance to homosexuality will somehow make straight people automatically gay or breed new gay people.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Boo Dudley on September 23, 2008, 09:02:53 AM
lol @ people who think it's a choice.

lol @ turtlekid. I could've sworn the way you follow Glorb around...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 23, 2008, 10:19:06 AM
lol @ people who think it's a choice.

lol @ turtlekid.

Ah, redundancy.  It's as much a choice as any other negative addiction/problem.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Boo Dudley on September 23, 2008, 10:29:50 AM
Except you didn't just stop at it being a choice, you went full-blown Fox News stupid, which is an entirely different league from regular, garden-variety stupid.

So you best check yo self 'fore you wreck yo self.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 23, 2008, 10:52:36 AM
Except you didn't just stop at it being a choice, you went full-blown Fox News stupid, which is an entirely different league from regular, garden-variety stupid.

How, exactly did I do this?  Honest question.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on September 23, 2008, 12:34:04 PM
Turtlekid, homosexuality isn't something you can do anything about. People have tried to force homosexuals to become heterosexuals, but it just doesn't work. The only thing you can do is see them as human beings and accept them for who they are. You are not supposed to judge.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on September 23, 2008, 02:07:18 PM
It's official. Turtlekid is the new CTOAN.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: nensondubois on September 23, 2008, 03:02:45 PM
I personally feel slightly uncomfortable about being near people who are gay and/or married but I do feel that it's not right to actually tell them how to live their lives.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 23, 2008, 03:21:54 PM
Turtlekid, homosexuality isn't something you can do anything about. People have tried to force homosexuals to become heterosexuals, but it just doesn't work. The only thing you can do is see them as human beings and accept them for who they are. You are not supposed to judge.

No, I can't force them.  Nor would I want to.  But I can tell them that if they don't make the choice, I won't be the one to judge them.

It's official. Turtlekid is the new CTOAN.

CTOAN?...  You were dying for me to ask, weren't you?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 23, 2008, 03:44:14 PM
I'd rather not explain the whole CTOAN saga right now, but let'd just say that's not a compliment.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Uvaz on September 23, 2008, 03:53:14 PM
No offense, but that post was the exact definition of ignorance.
:' (
Quote
Comparing video game fans and lame subcultures to broad groups of people who suffer discrimination and hate crimes on a daily basis doesn't work.
Don't work on what? What do you think I was trying to do with that? I said this because the guy in question acts like "Look at me I am homosexual therefore I am very mature and tolerant unlike you" and as I said he actually is very intolerant with stuff which is, like you implied, pretty unimportant in comparison. What does this has to do with anything? Well just a little something I wanted to share.

Quote
Neither does the insanely tired argument of "omh if gays marry than donkeys and robots will mary 2!!!".
Well maybe I said this in a pretty stupid way, but if you think about it, it wouldn't be surprising.

Finally, you seem to get the impression that I am against it, while actually I am neutral.

lol @ people who think it's a choice.

How can you be so sure that it isn't a choice? It's ok if you think it isn't, but but if you are going to lol at people who don't agree with you at least show some proof or reasons why you think what you think.

Personally I think it depends on the individual. Some times it is a choice and sometimes it isn't.

(PS This boards will tear TMK apart lawlz)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Boo Dudley on September 23, 2008, 04:24:39 PM
How, exactly did I do this?  Honest question.

I will say this only once (unless I'm inclined to say it again):  Homosexuality is perversion.

No, just on the morality of the already morally-drained country we live in.


Perverse is judgmental term, but it's this "morally bankrupt nation" that really gets me. How's it "immoral"? Is it because it doesn't adhere to the archaic and repressed rules of your bible?

Are you in some way affiliated with Bill O'reilly or any other typical pundent? 'Cause this is the kind of drivel they spit up for a pay-check.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 23, 2008, 04:25:42 PM
Yeah. Gay people willingly become part of a minority that is shunned in most countries, killed in others. It's just... man, how can you resist?

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.tinypic.com%2F63upuc.jpg&hash=a0db8bcf1fb6f5de0eea7a9dffad1883)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 23, 2008, 04:49:40 PM
This comes from someone who used to post here, and was, in fact, homosexual:

"But I'm pretty sure gays choose to be gay."

Why would anyone choose to be ostracized, made fun of, threatened, unable to enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexuals, and have their dating pool restricted to like 10% of the population?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MaxVance on September 23, 2008, 05:06:45 PM
To answer the original question, I picked the "I don't really care" option. The personal lives of other people have never really bothered me.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on September 23, 2008, 06:38:54 PM
In one of the ads that appeared above this thread, I clicked on one (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible?gclid=CMiPoaKW85UCFQFvGgoddgkybQ) that dealt with Homosexuality and the Bible. This brought me to a downloadable booklet, which according to the site brings up several points:

Quote
   1.  Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
   2. Historically, people's misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.
   3. We should be open to new truth from Scripture. Even heroes of the Christian faith have changed their minds about the meaning of various Biblical texts.
   4. The Bible is a book about God. The Bible is not a book about human sexuality.
   5. We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex.
   6. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.
   7. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today. But, they are clear about this one thing. As we search for truth, we are to "Love one another."
   8. Whatever some people believe the Bible seems to say about homosexuality, they must not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. To discriminate against sexual or gender minorities is unjust and un-American.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MushroomJunkie on September 23, 2008, 06:58:31 PM
Man I'm sure glad Vidgmchtr isn't here to see this thread.....
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 23, 2008, 07:10:48 PM
He was viewing it via a proxy last night.

Just so you all are reminded, CTOAN came back with a new outlook and basically said he'd matured and saw reason.

1. Being born black or a woman isn't something you can change (or shouldn't be, but there's just another example of how perverted our society is).

Excuse me, but are you saying that being black or a woman are on the same level as being gay to you, but you accept them only because they're born that way and you don't accept gay people because for some reason you think they are not?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 23, 2008, 09:26:56 PM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.tinypic.com%2F63upuc.jpg&hash=a0db8bcf1fb6f5de0eea7a9dffad1883)

*gasp* Animated facepalm!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Kojinka on September 24, 2008, 11:09:20 AM
Marriage is a commitment.  As long as a couple love each other enough to make that commitment, I don't care if they are straight or gay.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 24, 2008, 05:26:32 PM
I've done some more thinking.

For those who do think it's the government's duty to stop homosexuality [by some means] "cuz its worng," think: why do we choose to have a government to begin with? The government's job is to protect its people. So we ban things--we ban killing, and why? Well, killing leads to death, intruding on the natural rights. We ban stealing for the same reason, reckless driving habits are banned to prevent death, etc.

Tell me, who is being protected from harm when gay people are not allowed to marry each other? No one, really. No one. Therefore the government cannot ban gay marriage, as it's simply not dangerous and violates the personal freedom of nobody.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 24, 2008, 07:49:52 PM
How can you be so sure that it isn't a choice? It's ok if you think it isn't, but but if you are going to lol at people who don't agree with you at least show some proof or reasons why you think what you think.

Personally I think it depends on the individual. Some times it is a choice and sometimes it isn't.
I am perfectly willing to believe it can be a personal choice, but only if someone can provide evidence that the following exchange--or something similar to it--has ever taken place in the history of the world:

"So... are you gay?"

"No! Well, I must confess, every once in a while, I get a strong urge to have sex with a man. But I just pray for a while and the feeling goes away. Can't let Satan get to me!"
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 25, 2008, 08:48:30 AM
He was viewing it via a proxy last night.

Just so you all are reminded, CTOAN came back with a new outlook and basically said he'd matured and saw reason.

Excuse me, but are you saying that being black or a woman are on the same level as being gay to you, but you accept them only because they're born that way and you don't accept gay people because for some reason you think they are not?

No!  Not at all!  Not only can you not help being born black or a woman, but there's nothing wrong with being either of those.  What I was saying is that being gay is an inclination or temptation, not a lot in life.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MushroomJunkie on September 25, 2008, 09:02:01 AM
"No! Well, I must confess, every once in a while, I get a strong urge to have sex with a man. But I just pray for a while and the feeling goes away. Can't let Satan get to me!"

Are you serious or are you just trying to be funny.

Edit: Never mind I get what you were doing.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 25, 2008, 11:16:40 AM
What I was saying is that being gay is an inclination or temptation, not a lot in life.
Whether that's what you were saying or not, the fact is, you're incorrect.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 25, 2008, 06:47:36 PM
You can think whatever you want and be wrong, TurtleKid but answer me: if a government's job is to protect, why does the government have a right to decide who can marry whom?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MushroomJunkie on September 25, 2008, 07:33:18 PM
Because being gay can make diseases such as AIDS spread  5 times as fast (or faster) then if everybody was straight.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 25, 2008, 07:35:55 PM
How does that make sense?

Also gay or straight you should be smart enough to know how to avoid those diseases. Why people have so little self-control as to keep them going is beyond me.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Boo Dudley on September 25, 2008, 07:39:03 PM
Uhhh.... AIDS has to be spread sexually or through blood transmissions. Any fluid, really. So if you're straight and get AIDS from a gay man... you're either a heroin addict or lying about being gay--which all the more reason for people to stop convincing homosexuals it's a choice.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MushroomJunkie on September 26, 2008, 06:44:51 AM
I dunno.  I know straight guys who turned gay, I'm gonna have to agree with everything Turtlekid1 said.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 26, 2008, 07:04:14 AM
Well, in the case of Lindsay Lohan, that's just your usual celesbian attention-getting. But, like nearsightedness or asthma, it's not impossible for homosexuality to develop later in life. Heck, I heard some guy turned gay after a car accident (rear-end collision? That's not my joke. (http://That's not my joke.)), though he may have just been looking for a quick buck in court.

Here's the thing: Right now, CNN is doing a segment on how gay characters in TV shows/movies is kind of becoming a "thing", and that's where I draw the line, because that's just bigotry in the opposite direction. Now, that's not a homophobic statement. I'd be just as irked if it suddenly became "in" to add tons of female, black, or handicapped characters to media just 'cause.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Eclipsed Moon on September 26, 2008, 07:36:42 AM
Did you forget the blaxploitation era?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 26, 2008, 01:32:13 PM
You can think whatever you want and be wrong, TurtleKid but answer me: if a government's job is to protect, why does the government have a right to decide who can marry whom?

First off, people should have enough of a moral compass to know what perversion is; the government shouldn't even have to interfere.  But apparently people don't.  The fact is, if it bans something like this, the government is protecting.  It's protecting over 200 years of a Christian Nation's heritage and culture from being over-run by something perverse.

Whether that's what you were saying or not, the fact is, you're incorrect.

Alright, I guess we should shut down all the AA meetings because people are born alcoholics, and there's no way they can change that.  Oh, and stop drug rehab, too, because drug addicts will always be drug addicts.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on September 26, 2008, 02:00:30 PM
The fact is, if it bans something like this, the government is protecting.  It's protecting over 200 years of a Christian Nation's heritage and culture from being over-run by something perverse.
That's what they said when they segregated blacks. Look how that turned out, hm?
If you actually clicked the link I posted, you'd find that the Bible does not refer to homosexuality ever. Therefore Christianity neither condemns nor approves of it.

Alright, I guess we should shut down all the AA meetings because people are born alcoholics, and there's no way they can change that.  Oh, and stop drug rehab, too, because drug addicts will always be drug addicts.
You seem to ignore that alcoholism is something of will, not of birth. Sexual orientation is hard-wired into a person.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 26, 2008, 03:21:26 PM
Did you forget the blaxploitation era?
I meant now (though we could be due for a resurgence).

It's protecting over 200 years of a Christian Nation's heritage and culture from being over-run by something perverse.
Whatever. Does "Freedom of Religion" mean nothing to you? Yeah, this is a predominantly Christian country, but that doesn't mean we should keep segregating people.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 26, 2008, 03:24:00 PM
That's what they said when they segregated blacks. Look how that turned out, hm?
If you actually clicked the link I posted, you'd find that the Bible does not refer to homosexuality ever. Therefore Christianity neither condemns nor approves of it.
You seem to ignore that alcoholism is something of will, not of birth. Sexual orientation is hard-wired into a person.

So is alcoholism.  People's bodies are different in how they react to alcohol.  Some people get drunk/addicted more easily than others.

That's what they said when they segregated blacks. Look how that turned out, hm?

Yeah, now you can't say anything negative about a black person without it being a "racist" remark.  You can't not hire them for a job because they're not qualified for fear of being labeled a "racist".  They went too far in the other direction.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MushroomJunkie on September 26, 2008, 03:26:36 PM
If you actually clicked the link I posted, you'd find that the Bible does not refer to homosexuality

Sodom and Gomorrah.  In the Bible the city was burned down because it was filled with nothing but gays (and the small family that weren't which God protected and lead them out of the city before he burned it).  The Bible states very clearly that homosexuality is a sin.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Boo Dudley on September 26, 2008, 03:36:24 PM
So is alcoholism.  People's bodies are different in how they react to alcohol.  Some people get drunk/addicted more easily than others.

Alcoholism is genetic, yes. But does being gay behind the wheel kill people? Does being gay at work slow production?

Yeah, now you can't say anything negative about a black person without it being a "racist" remark.  You can't not hire them for a job because they're not qualified for fear of being labeled a "racist".  They went too far in the other direction.

Again, Fox News.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 26, 2008, 03:44:20 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah.  In the Bible the city was burned down because it was filled with nothing but gays (and the small family that weren't which God protected and lead them out of the city before he burned it).  The Bible states very clearly that homosexuality is a sin.

I thought he also turned a lady and her kid into a big salty lawn ornament for watching him blow them up, pretty much just for kicks? I think that says something about the validity of this dude's methods.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on September 26, 2008, 04:18:58 PM
He drowned everyone on the planet except Noah (who was a drunk) and his family an all those animals for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The God of the Old Testament is definitely not a god I'd worship.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 26, 2008, 05:12:48 PM
Supposedly, he drowned them because they were all sinning... but, what, like we aren't all now?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 26, 2008, 05:55:32 PM
The explanation for that, of course, is that God said he wouldn't flood the earth again. It's a nice (convenient) explanation for why a flood of that magnitude hasn't happened since. Of course, that story exists in a lot of cultures.

And I will point out that America is not a "Christian nation", and never was intended to be, regardless of the religious views of the founding fathers. They had more consideration than that.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MushroomJunkie on September 26, 2008, 07:55:59 PM
I thought he also turned a lady and her kid into a big salty lawn ornament for watching him blow them up, pretty much just for kicks? I think that says something about the validity of this dude's methods.

It was only the wife because God told them "Do not look back"  it was merely a test of faith in him.  He wanted them to believe that He would supply all their needs and they wouldn't need all their things back in Sodom.  The wife did not have faith in the God that delivered them out of the city.

He drowned everyone on the planet except Noah (who was a drunk) and his family an all those animals for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The God of the Old Testament is definitely not a god I'd worship.

He flooded the earth because the entire earth was filled with nothing but sin.  It was complete and total anarchy, murder, theivery, rape, and anything else you can think of people would do with no trial or punishment.  Nobody was good except Noah and his family.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 26, 2008, 09:41:44 PM
Supposedly, he drowned them because they were all sinning... but, what, like we aren't all now?

Ahaha!... oh, you were serious... we aren't nearly bad as they were then, even as deranged as this world can be.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 26, 2008, 09:53:08 PM
Of course, that story exists in a lot of cultures.
I've never understood the logic behind this objection. If the flood actually happened, and everyone today is descended from the six sole survivors of said flood, wouldn't you expect every culture to have passed the story down in some form?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 26, 2008, 10:27:50 PM
I want to stay out of this board, but first I want my question to actually get answered. TurtleKid.

A government's job is to protect its people.
You with me so far? Okay.
So, if that's why we have a government, why is it their right to tell us who we can and can't marry?
Did you get all that?

Do not avoid the question. I will ask it again if you tell me "because it's disgusting," because that's just what you think, as much as I think eating chocolate cakes with mustard is, but it's not the government's job to stop the consumption of mustard chocolate cakes. Tell me why same-sex marriage is dangerous. Tell me how it is tyrannical. Tell me about any harm any given gay person has given you just out of their orientation. No, your disgust does not count. I mean anything that actually bars you from life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness. That last one cannot be used to say that you're simply not happy with their feelings, as there are millions of things I'm not happy with, and it is not the government's job to make you happy, but to allow you to be happy, and you could certainly be if gay marriage were permitted--of that I am positive.

Do you have an answer?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 26, 2008, 11:31:10 PM
CrossEyed, I think the flood happened in some form, but I don't think it's likely for the entire population of the world to have descended from six people or for the whole world to have been flooded. If that were the case, where did all the extra water go?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on September 27, 2008, 01:47:00 AM
Sodom and Gomorrah.  In the Bible the city was burned down because it was filled with nothing but gays (and the small family that weren't which God protected and lead them out of the city before he burned it).  The Bible states very clearly that homosexuality is a sin.
It's obvious you never clicked the link.

It very well mentions Sodom and states that it was burned down because its people turned away from being charitable and put themselves before everyone else, including God. (Gay) Rape is never an issue. Rape was in fact used commonly among people during that time on their enemies to dehumanize them, regardless of gender. Orientation was never involved.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MushroomJunkie on September 27, 2008, 06:19:47 AM
It's obvious you never clicked the link.

I did click the link and read it.  I'm sorry but I believe what the Bible says before I believe some unknown website that I've never heard of before.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on September 27, 2008, 07:01:20 AM
You're not very open minded.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 27, 2008, 07:09:08 AM
"I tried to be opened-minded, but my brain kept falling out."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 27, 2008, 09:02:40 AM
I think it says a whole lot that no one's answered BP yet.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 27, 2008, 10:04:11 AM
Well he wants Turtlekid to do it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on September 27, 2008, 11:12:57 AM
My roommate and I had a brief discussion about homosexuality, and he thinks that if homosexuality is caused from the environment or is "Nurture" instead of "Nature", then homosexuality would probably increase with gay couples raising children, which is bad because it would inhibit procreation and encourage sexual deviancy and all that.  (With overpopulation, less people doesn't sound so bad...)  But what difference would it make if homosexuality is genetic?
We're both of the opinion that gay civil unions should stay, because people ought to live with whom they love.  However, we're both somewhat against gay marriage because it's a traditionally religious ceremony, and religion is the reason most people are against homosexuality in the first place.  I think gay couples ought to have some sort of ceremony with vows and flowers and cake and all that, just without the parson, I guess...
I chose "mixed views".  Orientation-wise, I have no idea what I am, so I just choose to avoid intimate relationships altogether.  But that's my choice, whereas I feel orientation isn't.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Eclipsed Moon on September 27, 2008, 12:00:17 PM
We're both of the opinion that gay civil unions should stay, because people ought to live with whom they love.  However, we're both somewhat against gay marriage because it's a traditionally religious ceremony, and religion is the reason most people are against homosexuality in the first place.  I think gay couples ought to have some sort of ceremony with vows and flowers and cake and all that, just without the parson, I guess...
I agree with this, but I'm also not too fond of marriage in the first place.  Either way, it is unfair to exclude homosexual couples from the same rights and benefits that married couples are permitted to enjoy.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 27, 2008, 10:20:03 PM
Not too fond of marriage?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Uvaz on September 27, 2008, 11:37:16 PM
I think it says a whole lot that no one's answered BP yet.

Let's try it.

I want to stay out of this board, but first I want my question to actually get answered. TurtleKid.

A government's job is to protect its people.
You with me so far? Okay.
So, if that's why we have a government, why is it their right to tell us who we can and can't marry?
Did you get all that?

Do not avoid the question. I will ask it again if you tell me "because it's disgusting," because that's just what you think, as much as I think eating chocolate cakes with mustard is, but it's not the government's job to stop the consumption of mustard chocolate cakes. Tell me why same-sex marriage is dangerous. Tell me how it is tyrannical. Tell me about any harm any given gay person has given you just out of their orientation. No, your disgust does not count. I mean anything that actually bars you from life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness. That last one cannot be used to say that you're simply not happy with their feelings, as there are millions of things I'm not happy with, and it is not the government's job to make you happy, but to allow you to be happy, and you could certainly be if gay marriage were permitted--of that I am positive.

Do you have an answer?
Well that's like saying "Why the government wants us to wear clothes?" Going around naked isn't actually harming other people, but that cruel nazi government don't want us to!
I think we all agree that it is disgusting, but... is it dangerous or tyrannical? No right?  However, we can't be naked in public! What a travesty!
Conclusion: People have the right to be naked in public (huh).

(Note: I am not a troll :o)

My roommate and I had a brief discussion about homosexuality, and he thinks that if homosexuality is caused from the environment or is "Nurture" instead of "Nature", then homosexuality would probably increase with gay couples raising children, which is bad because it would inhibit procreation and encourage sexual deviancy and all that.  (With overpopulation, less people doesn't sound so bad...)  But what difference would it make if homosexuality is genetic?
We're both of the opinion that gay civil unions should stay, because people ought to live with whom they love.  However, we're both somewhat against gay marriage because it's a traditionally religious ceremony, and religion is the reason most people are against homosexuality in the first place.  I think gay couples ought to have some sort of ceremony with vows and flowers and cake and all that, just without the parson, I guess...
I chose "mixed views".  Orientation-wise, I have no idea what I am, so I just choose to avoid intimate relationships altogether.  But that's my choice, whereas I feel orientation isn't.

I am pretty sure homosexuality isn't genetic (It would be extinct, don't you think?).  But what causes homosexuality then? I think I saw in Discovery channel something about gay animals, that had some sort of problem in their brain(maybe an hormonal one I don't remember) that caused them to act like the opposite sex, or something like that. I can't remember if they said anything about genetics, though. Then is the interesting case of the bonobos, which are monkeys who have sex with ANYONE of their species when they have the chance.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior )

And I think that kids raised by homosexual couples would be homosexual when they grow up.
And I still think homosexuality is a choice, at least for some people. The "It is a bad choice therefore it must not be voluntary" doesn't satisfy me.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 28, 2008, 12:53:09 AM
About the clothes thing, you're absolutely right. The government shouldn't have the right to tell us to wear clothes.

If they didn't I'm sure society would take care of it though. The government didn't say you couldn't loiter outside of the supermarket--the owner of the supermarket did. The government didn't say you couldn't smoke in the day care center--the owner of the day care center did. The government didn't say you couldn't link to ROM downloads--Deezer did. Similarly, most facilities would require that one wear clothing inside or around them, so home would be the only place to go nude. I'd still wear clothes all the time, because I choose to for various reasons. I'm sure most others would make the same choice. And if the government did not enforce the wearing of clothes, there'd be plenty of activists trying instead. Signs like "Don't show us those; put on some clothes" (you're welcome for the new sig if you're reading this, Lizard Dude) would line the roads. Which is what I'd expect homophobes to do if the government allowed gay marriage.

Am I trying to say I'd support the right to go naked unless otherwise posted? Nah. I just don't think those in the white house should be the ones telling us to, same as how I don't think the government should ban genetic alterations even though I personally find it horrible. I'd be supporting the clothes cause myself, same as I state my belief that genetic alteration isn't moral. I only really care to have the gay marriage ban lifted because it's primitive, inhuman discrimination and I don't judge people based on their sex lives. We aren't a bunch of suspecting witch hunters governed by the church anymore and it's time to stop acting that way.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on September 28, 2008, 07:43:06 AM
Turtlekid1, you should try to be gay.  Really try.  Give it a few of weeks.  Go on a date.  Watch some gay entertainment.  Look longingly into your dates eyes for several minutes.  Make out.  Enjoy it.  Want to do it again.  Be gay.

If you can force yourself to be gay, really gay, then it is a choice.  If you can't decide to be gay then someone who is gay probably can't just decide to be straight.  If you find it impossible to change your sexual orientation then stop calling others people's orientation a choice.

Do this sound like a fair challenge? 
Since Turtlekid1 didn't take my challenge I'll open it up to anyone else who thinks sexual orientation is a choice.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Boo Dudley on September 28, 2008, 09:21:07 AM
I am pretty sure homosexuality isn't genetic (It would be extinct, don't you think?).  But what causes homosexuality then? I think I saw in Discovery channel something about gay animals, that had some sort of problem in their brain(maybe an hormonal one I don't remember) that caused them to act like the opposite sex, or something like that. I can't remember if they said anything about genetics, though. Then is the interesting case of the bonobos, which are monkeys who have sex with ANYONE of their species when they have the chance.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior )

And I think that kids raised by homosexual couples would be homosexual when they grow up.
And I still think homosexuality is a choice, at least for some people. The "It is a bad choice therefore it must not be voluntary" doesn't satisfy me.

My grandfather had Alzheimer's (RIP), my great aunt (his sister) does not. But her children are still susceptible to it. It's called recessive genes--you could carry the genes that cause homosexuality and not be gay, but still potentially have gay offspring.

Again, Evolution is not a machine that kills off unfavorable traits (passing of genetic material). Stop anthropomorphizing it. And we're not animal's, we keep everyone alive barring murderers.(THAT'S a choice.)

Many homosexuals are forced, "Scared straight". They are still gay, but they have wives and children--those kids are very likely to be gay. duh.

And those raised by homosexuals are more likely to embrace homosexuality in others, or in themselves if they are coincidentally gay.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Uvaz on September 28, 2008, 12:26:31 PM
Yeah I know what recessive genes are. And I though that the whole point of evolution was to kill off useless or harmful characteristics while generating good ones, well my bad. And we are indeed animals. But you meant that unlike animals every single human mates and that human babies survive more often than the babies of other species, therefore passing on harmful traits, which is something that doesn't occur with other animals? Well yeah you would be right.

Quote
They are still gay, but they have wives and children--those kids are very likely to be gay. duh.
Well that would be true if homosexuality is indeed genetic.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 28, 2008, 01:07:49 PM
And I though that the whole point of evolution was to kill off useless or harmful characteristics while generating good ones, well my bad.

Um, yes, your bad. You're thinking of natural selection. Evolution is developing a new trait due to a mutation or some such, and then having that trait pass down from generation to generation.

And, yes, we are animals. But see, here's the thing. Last time I checked, we're currently at the top of the food chain. Natural selection occurs when, for example, a species is getting killed off by some predator, and develops some sort of defense system. That's not really the case with humans. It's not that we're some sort of perfect life form; it's just that we have technology that allows us to live longer than we would've had we never figured out that you can make stuff out of other stuff.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 29, 2008, 06:05:17 PM
I want to stay out of this board, but first I want my question to actually get answered. TurtleKid.

A government's job is to protect its people.
You with me so far? Okay.
So, if that's why we have a government, why is it their right to tell us who we can and can't marry?
Did you get all that?

Do not avoid the question. I will ask it again if you tell me "because it's disgusting," because that's just what you think, as much as I think eating chocolate cakes with mustard is, but it's not the government's job to stop the consumption of mustard chocolate cakes. Tell me why same-sex marriage is dangerous. Tell me how it is tyrannical. Tell me about any harm any given gay person has given you just out of their orientation. No, your disgust does not count. I mean anything that actually bars you from life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness. That last one cannot be used to say that you're simply not happy with their feelings, as there are millions of things I'm not happy with, and it is not the government's job to make you happy, but to allow you to be happy, and you could certainly be if gay marriage were permitted--of that I am positive.

Do you have an answer?

It has nothing to do with whether I think it's 'disgusting' (for the record, I think it most certainly is).  It has to do with the fact that it is perversion
It's dangerous because it can only be detrimental to the moral and spiritual health of everyone everywhere. 
I don't recall saying it's tyrannical, but do you honestly think that gay people will stop at wanting "tolerance"?  As my previous post said, look at black people.  Look at hispanic people.  You can't say anything even remotely negative and completely non-rascist/personal/not applying to that group as a whole without it being "politically incorrect" or "offensive."  Atheists make digs at Christians all the time (I'm not talking about anyone on this board, you all are actually pretty nice), but can we be offended at it?  Of course not.  We're just religious nut-jobs. 
...Sorry about that little tangent.  My point is, it's the same with every minority.  They'll just keep wanting a bigger slice of the pie.
Harm any gay person has given me?  None, personally.  This isn't about me personally (ah, individualism; one of the most irksome elements of the human race).  This is about people disregarding God's law and natural law. 
It most certainly bars people from liberty.  I don't want little children in school being taught that homosexuality is "okay."  And guess what happens when a sweet little kid with a moral compass comes along and dares to question whether it's "okay"?  He gets put down.  He gets persecuted.  His spirit will be broken and his mind indoctrinated.  His freedom of speech will be supressed.  That's the liberty this will bar.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 29, 2008, 06:16:44 PM
Why does it matter what kids are taught about homosexuality? They aren't going to decide to go be gay. Take Luigison's challenge and see that it's not a choice.

Also, you just keep saying "it's a perversion." You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: MaxVance on September 29, 2008, 06:20:42 PM
I believe he did give his answer as to why gay marriage should be prohibited:
 
it can only be detrimental to the moral and spiritual health of everyone everywhere.
I was never taught about homosexuality in school. I also don't care one way or the other about it or "normal" marriage. Go figure....
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 29, 2008, 06:23:54 PM
Why does it matter what kids are taught about homosexuality? They aren't going to decide to go be gay. Take Luigison's challenge and see that it's not a choice.

Also, you just keep saying "it's a perversion." You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question.

I keep saying it because it's true.

"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.'"  Leviticus 20:13.  

To answer your question, if my previous one wasn't good enough, it shouldn't have to be the government's right, but if people are foolish enough to go against every moral law in heaven and earth, then something needs to be done.  The government needs to uphold morality.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Uvaz on September 29, 2008, 06:33:33 PM
Since Turtlekid1 didn't take my challenge I'll open it up to anyone else who thinks sexual orientation is a choice.

Bad challenge. If anyone completed it successfully, someone (aka you) will say "zomg you were gays all along".
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Captain Jim on September 29, 2008, 06:35:20 PM
Let me start off by saying I'm going to try to stay away from this board as much as possible, because it makes me angry and mean...now that's out of the way...

What is detestable is how people try to pull the religion card as their only argument against homosexuality. In fact, I'm unhappy with my church right now (Mormon) for their views of "All gays go to hell". Now, think about this.

Most homosexuals don't CHOOSE to be that way. It's just how they are.
Now then, according to most religions, doesn't God make us how we are?
Tell me, then, why would God make someone just to [darn] them to hell? This doesn't sound like the God I know.

Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 29, 2008, 06:39:56 PM
I will say this once more.  Homosexuality is an inclination.  You can either give in to it or not.  You have a choice about it like everything else in life.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Captain Jim on September 29, 2008, 06:45:55 PM
Funny. That's what all the people at my church say. And, still funny, I don't buy it, TurtleKid. I don't buy it one bit.
Have you ever talked to a gay person, Turtlekid? I have. And you know what they told me? They told me they were born that way. Another fun one. One of those people at my church has a gay son. Said the same thing.

You can tell me that it's a temptation until you're blue in the face, TurtleKid. But I'm still not going to buy it.

Four Cents.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 29, 2008, 06:52:16 PM
Most homosexuals don't CHOOSE to be that way. It's just how they are.
Where's the proof? Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Show scientific proof that some people just have to be gay. If all you have is people who say they feel like they were born that way, that could just as well support Turtlekid's argument as yours, probably more. It just means it's a really strong temptation.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 29, 2008, 06:54:16 PM
As my previous post said, look at black people.  Look at hispanic people. 

They'll just keep wanting a bigger slice of the pie.
I think I have a bigger problem with this than most of the thread. It reeks of even more wrong thinking and misanthropy to people who are the same as you.

CrossEyed, I'd cite the science if I knew where to cite, but yes, there is a difference in gay people's brains compared to straight people. You can not change it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 29, 2008, 07:39:50 PM
The government needs to uphold morality.

1. It's only immoral by the Bible. Separation of church and state. There is no national religion because we aren't a bunch of witch-burning puritans. Bringing religion into a political discussion is instantaneous failure in my book. Despite any religion I may follow, I think politics from an atheistic point of view because that's how our country was built. With freedom in mind.

2. No they don't. The government doesn't tell me not to lie to my parents. The government doesn't tell me not to swear to my peers. The government doesn't tell me not to flip off bad drivers. I don't do any of those things because I believe they're all crude and I have some amount of self-control.

3. Now, your orientation, like any other like or dislike (and in a more dark zone, fetish), you can't choose or fight. I've tried to force myself to like things before. Coffee. The kinds of music my sister likes (she was the one trying though, but I tried for her). Green beans. When Pokémon went out of style "because we all grew out of it," I tried to stop liking it. Couldn't. Didn't play for a long time but eventually came back. Drug or alcohol addictions can be overcome, but notice the difficulty. And it's not forcing yourself to stop liking it so much as forcing yourself away from it. This is all anecdotal evidence, though. Go ahead and find those sources, Chup.

4. Again you are failing to answer my question (because there is no answer to "how does homosexuality hurt other people" except for "it does not.") Likes and dislikes that hurt people can be outlawed--some people like to shoot people. Some people don't like to tell the truth in court. These result in pain for others. Love lives are very different. You see two guys. Big deal. You see two guys holding hands. OKAY NOW IT'S TIME FOR GOVERNING. But why? Were there guns in their other hands? I mean, there are things people are allowed to do in public that DO hurt others. Smoking is still legal.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 29, 2008, 10:13:17 PM
If being gay is an inclination, then I guess being "straight" is too.

Da Vinci was gay. Put that in your grail and drink it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 29, 2008, 10:52:39 PM
So was Tchaikovsky. And a lot of other people.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 29, 2008, 11:24:25 PM
You know what's also funny...

"It's a choice. That's why we can't have it."

Let freedom ring!

...Man I need to stay away from this board. I pretend I've never been here when I'm not here.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 30, 2008, 05:08:42 AM
CrossEyed, I'd cite the science if I knew where to cite, but yes, there is a difference in gay people's brains compared to straight people. You can not change it.
So just like the evidence for evolution in the "Religon" thread, we just take somebody's word that they saw it somewhere? Not to mention that your description sounds suspiciously like correlation implying causation.

Also, I'm rather surprised this (http://www.exodus-international.org/) hasn't been brought up yet. (Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International)'s their Wikipedia article, for your convenience)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 30, 2008, 07:25:06 AM
Well, when you put it scientifically, being gay is a "choice"... but it's a purely biological one. I mean, with enough medication, surgery, and/or hypnosis, you could turn a gay, white pacifist into a straight, black warmongerer.

This (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Top/ecomments/4735/) is really quite interesting.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 30, 2008, 07:27:29 AM
If being gay is an inclination, then I guess being "straight" is too.

Da Vinci was gay. Put that in your grail and drink it.

Yep, being straight is an inclination too.  The difference being it's the right inclination.

1. It's only immoral by the Bible. Separation of church and state. There is no national religion because we aren't a bunch of witch-burning puritans. Bringing religion into a political discussion is instantaneous failure in my book. Despite any religion I may follow, I think politics from an atheistic point of view because that's how our country was built. With freedom in mind.

2. No they don't. The government doesn't tell me not to lie to my parents. The government doesn't tell me not to swear to my peers. The government doesn't tell me not to flip off bad drivers. I don't do any of those things because I believe they're all crude and I have some amount of self-control.

3. Now, your orientation, like any other like or dislike (and in a more dark zone, fetish), you can't choose or fight. I've tried to force myself to like things before. Coffee. The kinds of music my sister likes (she was the one trying though, but I tried for her). Green beans. When Pokémon went out of style "because we all grew out of it," I tried to stop liking it. Couldn't. Didn't play for a long time but eventually came back. Drug or alcohol addictions can be overcome, but notice the difficulty. And it's not forcing yourself to stop liking it so much as forcing yourself away from it. This is all anecdotal evidence, though. Go ahead and find those sources, Chup.

4. Again you are failing to answer my question (because there is no answer to "how does homosexuality hurt other people" except for "it does not.") Likes and dislikes that hurt people can be outlawed--some people like to shoot people. Some people don't like to tell the truth in court. These result in pain for others. Love lives are very different. You see two guys. Big deal. You see two guys holding hands. OKAY NOW IT'S TIME FOR GOVERNING. But why? Were there guns in their other hands? I mean, there are things people are allowed to do in public that DO hurt others. Smoking is still legal.

1. You're mistaking the definition of "separation of church and state."  The phrase means that the government should not rule the church, not that the church should stay out of government.

2. Again, you're making it sound individualistic.  What's morally wrong for one person is morally wrong for any other person.

3. I didn't say that gay people can just wish away their temptation/inclinations.  They can do exactly what you mentioned: sat away from the temptation.  They can overcome it.  Or is it not worth doing what's right because they actually have to work for it?

4. It hurts the moral and spiritual health of everyone.  But I guess if you want to stand by and let this country rot, then go for it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 30, 2008, 07:30:46 AM
Or is it not worth doing what's right because they actually have to work for it
You are just... sounding like an extraordinary [jerk] right now.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 30, 2008, 07:39:44 AM
It's not worth changing what you're doing if you're doing no wrong.

So, yeah. I get it--I'm talking to a wall. No more of this board for me.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigalaxy on September 30, 2008, 07:42:24 AM
I have mixed views. My views exactly match yours, NintendoExpert.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on September 30, 2008, 09:30:38 AM
1. You're mistaking the definition of "separation of church and state."  The phrase means that the government should not rule the church, not that the church should stay out of government.
No. The phrase means both. "Government should not rule the church" is "freedom of religion."
Church being involved with government, as you're saying, hardly causes to them to be separate.

Yep, being straight is an inclination too.  The difference being it's the right inclination.

2. Again, you're making it sound individualistic.  What's morally wrong for one person is morally wrong for any other person.
Unless you can refer to me a book that isn't religious or biased that clearly states what morals apply to all humans, I am not swayed in thinking that one's moral view applies to all because you say so. Bringing up murder or crap like that is completely unrelated.

4. It hurts the moral and spiritual health of everyone.  But I guess if you want to stand by and let this country rot, then go for it.
Give me an example of how a person's moral and spiritual health is destroyed. And show its effects on the person as a whole.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 30, 2008, 10:32:31 AM
An example of how their moral/spiritual health is destroyed?  This thread is a perfect example.  I have seen at least one person who claims to be a Christian say that homosexuality should be tolerated in direct contrast to what the Bible says.  I have seen many others who say it's tolerable, probably either because their moral and spiritual health is already suffering, or because they've been broken into a state of submission by the propaganda of pop-culture/liberal media, and just don't care anymore.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 30, 2008, 10:35:04 AM
Or they came at it from an entirely different angle without being "broken into submission" at all.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Fifth on September 30, 2008, 11:34:04 AM
Mm, nothing says moral decay quite like tolerance.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: missingno on September 30, 2008, 12:06:59 PM
Homosexuality is not wrong, many of my friends are gay and bisexual. Even I myself am bisexual. I'm sure that'll make some people say "EW GTFO", but I don't see why someone would do that.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 30, 2008, 01:17:16 PM
Mm, nothing says moral decay quite like tolerance.

While I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, it's true in this case.

Homosexuality is not wrong, many of my friends are gay and bisexual. Even I myself am bisexual. I'm sure that'll make some people say "EW GTFO", but I don't see why someone would do that.

So because you and your friends practice homosexuality/bisexuality, that makes it okay?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 30, 2008, 01:27:39 PM
In their book, it would seem so.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 30, 2008, 01:30:11 PM
Relativism, another [unwanted] element detrimental to this country's morality.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 30, 2008, 01:38:46 PM
You can't force your moral code on others (which in practice tends to frown on anyone saying anything bad about anyone), unless it's the moral code that prohibits forcing moral codes on others. That one should be forced on everyone.

It comes back, as it seems to so often on this board, to the thing I wrote about lenses. Everyone has their own lens. Some people try to get others to use their lens instead. Just because you don't have a deity telling you your lens is good doesn't mean you're any different from the others that try to convince others to use their lens.

It'd be like if Bob Barr said "Hey, can't we just get past all this partisan politics and just support the vastly superior Libertarian Party?" It's still a party. Bob Barr can certainly campaign for his party, but he shouldn't act like he's above the party thing.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 30, 2008, 01:42:59 PM
You can't force your moral code on others (which in practice tends to frown on anyone saying anything bad about anyone), unless it's the moral code that prohibits forcing moral codes on others. That one should be forced on everyone.

I'm having a hard time deciding if that was sarcasm.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 30, 2008, 01:45:27 PM
It was.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 30, 2008, 04:41:10 PM
I have seen at least one person who claims to be a Christian say that homosexuality should be tolerated in direct contrast to what the Bible says.  I have seen many others who say it's tolerable, probably either because their moral and spiritual health is already suffering, or because they've been broken into a state of submission by the propaganda of pop-culture/liberal media, and just don't care anymore.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll310%2FGig_030%2F107rmeb.gif&hash=c0399c2da4c9fc8d7eb939fa2645d47f)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on September 30, 2008, 05:16:23 PM
I hate to say this, but...
Image/Post of the Year?

But on a more serious note:

Turtlekid, you keep saying that tolerance of other people's lifestyles the evil liberal media is causing peoples' souls to rot and such and such and such, but you never really explain how. How is is genuinely bad to practice/tolerate homosexuality? In what way does it erode people's values? And exactly how would a gay person be better off living a lifestyle that doesn't suit them at all, just to conform to your personal beliefs?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 30, 2008, 06:28:18 PM
This is really the last thing I'm going to say here. Promise.

You might have misinterpreted what I said before. It is absolutely not the government's job to protect us from Satan. It's their job to protect us from each other. Nothing else.

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoonside.kontek.net%2Ftheinternet%2Ffalwellvwashington.jpg&hash=4a51fb88df1c359e0580d88176f756d7)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on September 30, 2008, 06:34:32 PM
I think this is an issue that is life vs. soul.  To live a lifetime of happiness, or to sacrifice one's happiness for the sake of eternal happiness after life.  This I think is the Christian viewpoint towards Homosexuality.  I think we should remember that Turtlekid's opinions, while different, merely represent the Church's point of view.  The idea is that if homosexuals don't "practice sexual deviancy", they'll be spared eternal [darn]ation.  Ultimately Christians aren't against the idea of people being happy--just not in this life, to be very blunt.

In terms of marriage, be a person tolerant of homosexuality or not, marriage is considered a religious sacrament, and therefore it would not make sense for an anti-homosexual religion to allow such marriage within its sacrament.  I stand by what I said earlier, that gay civil unions would allow homosexuals the same legal rights as married couples, while allowing them to live together without imposing their own beliefs/orientation onto the religious sacrament.  Imposing their lifestyle on a religious sacrament like marriage would be like Christianity imposing their beliefs on homosexuals.  The real problem is that these overlap when it comes to marriage, which is both religious and something many people of all orientations want.

I also just want to add that whether or not homosexuality is an inclination or genetic is inconclusive.  Personally I think it is genetic, because unless I accidentally conditioned myself to be homosexual, I've never actually had to try to like people of my own gender in that way.  I just do, whether I want to or not.  However, as a Christian, who was brought up Christian, all I can look forward to in life is celibacy and denial to my family and friends.  You guys are the only people who know I'm gay.  I've said "bi" because I've refused to admit to myself what I am.  I've tried liking girls sexually, and I physically cannot.  I don't claim to represent the voice of a Christian or a homosexual, because in either case there is some condition brought about by the other.  But honestly, we should stop disrespecting each other's opinions and try to reach some middle ground.  I thought the idea of this thread was to express one's own opinions.  Of course we won't all agree, but we must acknowledge and potentially respect the values and lifestyles of others, regardless of orientation or religion.  While I think Turtlekid should accept the fact that there are non-Christian, sexually active homosexuals in the world, I think we should accept the fact that there are Christians too.

I stand by what I said.  Marriage is religious, but gay people should be able to share the legal benefits of legal straight couples.  Legally.  Not religiously.  Ceremonies don't have to be religious to include love.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on September 30, 2008, 09:32:33 PM
I'd like to add that marriage existed as a legal institution before Christianity came about, at least in the Roman empire, although of course the Jews and lots of other people had it in their religions.
And that Markio is probably the wisest person on these boards. But I've said that before.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jmdblazer on September 30, 2008, 09:38:20 PM
It seems that for me, I will never be able to accept gay people, whether men or women. They creep me out.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Captain Jim on September 30, 2008, 09:59:29 PM
Well, that's very mature, jmdblazer. Have fun in the real world.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 30, 2008, 10:05:40 PM
It seems that for me, I will never be able to accept gay people, whether men or women. They creep me out.
Maybe you creep me out and I just don't say anything about it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on September 30, 2008, 11:39:17 PM
So you're saying this creeps you out?



(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FFUN%2F4490%7EKiss-Posters.jpg&hash=7208e2ea9799ae0d15bc3a498762737e)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on October 01, 2008, 07:05:46 AM
0_o

"It's not an abomination. It's what should be replacing baseball as our national pasttime."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Insane Steve on October 01, 2008, 09:05:34 AM
@Turtlekid:

What is your opinion on the Westboro Baptist Church? Just curious.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on October 01, 2008, 02:51:06 PM
It seems that for me, I will never be able to accept gay people, whether men or women. They creep me out.

I will never be able to accept you. You creep me out.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on October 01, 2008, 04:01:27 PM
So you're saying this creeps you out?



(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FFUN%2F4490%7EKiss-Posters.jpg&hash=7208e2ea9799ae0d15bc3a498762737e)

New wallpaper get!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on October 01, 2008, 04:13:55 PM
Tiled or stretched? Or centered?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on October 01, 2008, 04:15:46 PM
I don't know about tiles, but something near my center just stretched.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on October 01, 2008, 04:19:32 PM
Man, SB's always one-upping me on my boner jokes. Or making boner jokes before I get the chance.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on October 01, 2008, 04:22:46 PM
*Bows*

But seriously, yeah, gay people do... "irk" me a bit, but it's no less rational to be paranoid about a gay person hitting on you than a person of the opposite sex doing the same (hopefully I worded that right).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Uvaz on October 01, 2008, 04:37:29 PM
It's funny how people that tolerate homosexuality are intolerant of Christianity. LOL!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on October 01, 2008, 05:07:25 PM
Because one is biological and the other's not. Let's not go over this again...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 01, 2008, 05:16:02 PM
Again? We didn't go over it the first time. It was just Chupperson saying "Yeah, I think I saw something somewhere." I thought religious people were supposed to be the ones who didn't think for themselves and just accepted things blindly.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on October 01, 2008, 05:20:08 PM
That's funny, because I distinctly recall various people back-and-forthing with Turtlekid over homosexuality being an inclination or not.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 01, 2008, 05:34:12 PM
I meant in the way of evidence. Your post made it sound like it was settled, but no one really proved anything.

I could have worded it better. I must be tired.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on October 01, 2008, 06:30:36 PM
If it means that much to you, I'll see if I can find what I read.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 02, 2008, 09:05:48 AM
@Turtlekid:

What is your opinion on the Westboro Baptist Church? Just curious.

Um... "God Hates [bundle of sticks]s"?  God, being the embodiment of all that is loving and just, does not hate [bundle of sticks]s.  God does hate the sin that gay people practice.  To say God hates a person goes against everything the Bible teaches.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on October 02, 2008, 03:54:06 PM
"These six things doth the Lord HATE: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:  A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,   A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." - Proverbs 6: 16-19  If taken literally I think it's clear that the God in the Bible hates at least two type of people. 

In PS 5:5, God hates workers of iniquity (i.e. sinners). In Lev.18:22 and.20:13 to lie with mankind (i.e. be homosexual) is an abomination (i.e. sin). Therefore God hates homosexuals.  Or as Rev. Phelps says, "God Hates [bundle of sticks]s".  Again, this is if you take the Bible literally and apply logic to it. 

I don't take the Bible literally or believe it is the inerrant word of God, but I can see where Rev. Phelps gets his idea.  I don't hate homosexuals either.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 02, 2008, 05:46:12 PM
1. The word "hate" in both those references can also refer to a foe or enemy of God; "witness" can refer to a testimony, not a person.
2. "To lie" refers to the action of doing something, not the people that do it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on November 01, 2008, 09:24:44 AM
http://www.maniacworld.com/Why-Homosexuality-Should-Be-Banned.html
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on November 01, 2008, 11:38:48 AM
I think that video would've been better if there was a really long awkward pause after the dude said "because straight parents only raise straight children".
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Trainman on November 01, 2008, 10:39:54 PM
If I meet a gay person when one of my friends introduces me to them, or someone I know decides they're gay later on in life, then I'm relatively cool with it.... just DON'T HIT ON ME OR I'LL KNOCK YOU OUT. I've never hung out with a gay dude out of school because the only few I knew were just acquaintances. I probably would NEVER hang out with a gay dude because I hate the way they talk stupidly and whatnot half the time and sometimes how they walk or carry purses (read: if they sound/look/act like Chris Crocker. He can burn in the double hockey stick place), but if they act normal, then I'd be cool with it.

I say I'm against same-sex marriage.... well I pretty much am, but I'd prolly be the last guy in the world to be outside with a picket saying "NO SAME SEX" because it's inevitable... as long as Chris Crocker is around ahahaha.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on November 01, 2008, 10:45:18 PM
I've got my fair share of gay kids at my school, and kids, don't let porn fool you: Not that many lesbians are very attractive.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on November 01, 2008, 10:56:01 PM
It's posts like Trainman's that want to make me leave the internet forever.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on November 01, 2008, 11:16:09 PM
To paraphrase Bill Maher: "People are opposing gay marriage because they say it destroys the 'sanctity of marriage'. As if anything you can do half-drunk off your ass in Vegas could be considered sacred."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on November 01, 2008, 11:31:00 PM
People who say they they're against homosexuality because they don't like their theoretical sex lives and don't want them to try to tempt them bewilder me. I don't want to know about anyone's sex lives whether they're straight or gay, and womanizers/manizers annoy me no matter who they are. I wouldn't imagine any given gay person's self control being any lower than most people my age. And I mean, are you narcissistic or something to be afraid that you'll be hit on? Really?

I'm starting to think I'm just not sexual at all. I may never start a family, but hey, that means I have my whole life to myself (after I get out of school, climb up the social ladder and start doing what I want to do). That sounds horribly selfish but that's the kind of life I want: mine.

A final note, that video was fantastic. I'm so bad at debating in person. Even when I know the person I'm talking to is a misguided cultist, I get all shaky and nervous and forget everything important I'm going to say.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on November 01, 2008, 11:39:51 PM
I'm starting to think I'm just not sexual at all. I may never start a family, but hey, that means I have my whole life to myself (after I get out of school, climb up the social ladder and start doing what I want to do). That sounds horribly selfish but that's the kind of life I want: mine.
Let it be known that we both agree on at least one thing.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on November 01, 2008, 11:44:41 PM
I thought the video was funny, at least.  I showed my Conservative roommate, and he would still vote yes on prop 8; but we're still friends, because friendship transcends sexual orientation.  I'm also in the closet, though!

Trainman, the "gay voice" isn't an affectation, people can't help speaking like that.  And not all gay people carry purses, nor do no straight men do that.  I don't walk or talk gayly, nor do I carry purses.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Trainman on November 02, 2008, 12:24:43 AM
Bottom line is this: I don't mind gay people, I really don't. I just been exposed to a lot in this area who are all Crocker-ish (NOT ALL), and it bothers the crap out of me. I admit I was wrong in saying that they speak stupidly, etc., all the time because not all of them do, and I didn't mean to say 100% of them do those things half the time. Crocker-ish ones = that bothers me; people who are just like "hey im gay and im chill with it and I act like anybody else" = cool. lol I mean, I have a couple gay friends and acquaintances, so it's not like I alienate them!!

Markio, I do apologize if I gave you or anyone else any type of BS.


And.... BP, apparently the "narcsissus" line was directed at me. Well, no, I'm not afraid at all of being hit on by gay dudes because I have already. When someone does hit on me I let them know; not in a mean way at all... I just say "Hey, I have a girlfriend" and they get the message that I'm straight and taken.... Only when they start trying to relentlessly convince me to like them/do stuff with them, then I'll have to smack some people around.... kinda like when Chris Cabla and his little buddy tried to seduce me at school... yeah, that's why I said "dont hit on me or i'll knock you out" because... I don't want their advance to go any further after that point.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on November 02, 2008, 12:26:14 AM
Why is there a preponderance of lisping gays?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on November 02, 2008, 12:44:18 AM
Not directed at you exactly, but there are plenty of people at my school who say similar things. There are a million things I wish I could say to the people in this town. Most of the people who live here are extreme conservatives (it's close to a military base, you see). But as I said, I can't say these things. I'm not good at talking. I pause a lot, I stutter sometimes, I forget what I'm about to say... So what I'm saying is, I'm sorry if it's all stacking up and seeming like I'm targeting you.

In fact I'll agree with you on the point that people who throw their gayness around are annoying. But I think the same thing about people who are obnoxiously vocal about sex in general. There are better things to do with the weekend.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Trainman on November 02, 2008, 01:16:23 AM
Nah, it's okay. I live right next to a military base too; actually, the largest army base in the world! Ft. Hood! It's in the Central Texas area.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on November 02, 2008, 02:00:09 AM
Trainman, if gay people are hitting on you, stop acting so gay.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on November 02, 2008, 09:35:24 AM
Personally, I'd be flattered if anyone hit on me, since most people take that as a compliment.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on November 02, 2008, 09:52:38 AM
ShadowBrain: no one knows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_lisp).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on November 02, 2008, 01:45:08 PM
Pfft... I may as well mention this now off-handedly. I'm sexually straight as an arrow, but my experimental side is telling me I should date a dude at least once. Anything wrong with that? :P
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: nensondubois on November 02, 2008, 02:58:12 PM
I've thought about that too several times. I never actually acted on any of urges
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on November 02, 2008, 03:31:42 PM
Umm... if that thought ever crossed my mind, it didn't register anywhere above subconscious. Dangit, guys, you're going to make start agreeing with Turtlekid with that talk.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Trainman on November 03, 2008, 03:51:55 PM
Trainman, if gay people are hitting on you, stop acting so gay.


Wrong. They end up thinking I'm cute, not thinking I'm gay or acting gay.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on November 03, 2008, 04:05:37 PM
I know what Trainman's talking about. However I had that happen to me years and years ago back in middle school when I was a raging dorkaholic. Now that I just walk around in a black blazer with sunglasses on, I haven't had that problem.

The moral of the story, look/act like you hate everyone, and everyone will stop bothering you.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigalaxy on November 03, 2008, 04:21:06 PM
Well, I was once a-cursed with a gay subconsious. Fortuantely, it disapeared. I'm straight.
Pfft... I may as well mention this now off-handedly. I'm sexually straight as an arrow, but my experimental side is telling me I should date a dude at least once. Anything wrong with that? :P
Well, thats like that song. "I Kissed A Girl." Don't let people know, at least. And make sure the guy is gay too HORRIBLY WRONG WORDING. I meant the guy is gay. Anyways, that will keep your rep normal.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on November 03, 2008, 05:38:29 PM
Normally I hate anything that has to do with Carlos Mencia but one thing I did find funny was his song about being not sure whether you're gay or not. It parodies "If you're happy and you're know it, clap your hands (Clap clap)". It went something like, "If you don't know if you're gay, then you're gay! (clap clap)"

All humor aside, I think the whole perception of your own preference is pretty straight forward. It's really a black and white thing. (or in this case, black, grey, and white) Black being you're 100% sure you can't be aroused by a dude, white being you're 100% sure you can't be aroused by a chick, and grey where you can't take a side. It's not like in politics where you can be a moderate conservative, a radical liberal, a green independent, it just doesn't work that way in my opinion.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on November 03, 2008, 09:11:55 PM
Well, there are bisexuals...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on November 03, 2008, 10:37:08 PM
Yeah, bisexuals fall into the grey category. You can't be slightly bisexual or very bisexual. You're attracted to both. All three are absolutes. No one wakes up one day and pleasures themselves to pictures of women, then the next day finds it absolutely impossible.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on November 05, 2008, 02:30:47 AM
It's called erectile dysfunction. Have some compassion.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on November 05, 2008, 11:21:10 AM
Oh great, what kinds of ads will that post bring down on us?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Mr. Wiggles on November 05, 2008, 04:02:21 PM
Hey guys, I voted yes on prop 8 as a joke since I figured the blue state of California probably wouldn't let such a thing pass.

As you can see, that went horribly wrong.

Am I supposed to feel bad now? It sure seems like I should, but i get the feeling gay marriage will probably become legal at some point in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on November 05, 2008, 05:31:40 PM
Oh great, what kinds of ads will that post bring down on us?
This kind:

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpagead2.googlesyndication.com%2Fpagead%2Fimgad%3Fid%3DCNrOpf7ivKbuEBDYBRhPMgj3JPBOjTpvDg&hash=63ba43db76c4f49ae36092ad4912c8af)

Oh, wait, that was already here. Well, he's as good as impotent, anyway.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on November 05, 2008, 10:41:02 PM
I think my man may be gay.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on November 06, 2008, 08:15:43 AM
I think this might be gay:

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgonintendo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fphotos%2Fthumb_skishoot.jpg&hash=da61c723a57bff179b2fb88c72a25223)

No, wait, it's just awesome.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on November 09, 2008, 07:53:19 PM
Hey guys, I voted yes on prop 8 as a joke

This is what's wrong with America.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: bullykoopa96 on April 28, 2009, 09:19:47 PM
I don't understand how anyone in this day and age can't accept gay people.  Like it's not a choice...by any means, you're born gay or not which is why it ****es me off when fathers try to get their kids to be perverts just because they're scared they will turn out gay.

Gay marriage is totally different territory.  I accept it, even though it's sort of a religious thing, but not every religious person is straight...obviously.

I accept them based on my sexual preferences.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on April 28, 2009, 11:20:24 PM
My best friend is a homosexual. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. So naturally, I am a staunch advocate of same-sex marriage and gay rights.

Looking back, I used to be opposed to homosexuality big time. How the times have changed...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on April 29, 2009, 07:02:25 PM
Basically, I feel that there should never be any law that restricts the freedom to do something as long as you continue following the law. I mean, straight people live here and pay taxes. gay people live here and pay taxes. But in most states, only straight people can get married, cos the bible says so. While I absolutely support gay rights, even if I didn't, it's still a ridiculous situation that contradicts what this country was founded on (well, at least, what this country was later decided to be founded on).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: bullykoopa96 on April 29, 2009, 07:15:24 PM
that's absolutely true, they have the same rights.  People are people.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on April 29, 2009, 07:29:35 PM
Marriage is an institution of the church.  As such, it should be up to the church to deny it to homosexual couples.  A civil union would give them the same benefits.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on April 29, 2009, 08:59:45 PM
It was an institution of the city-state before churches. And it is still a civil institution now, so please do some fact checking.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on May 02, 2009, 09:52:40 AM
And even if it was currently an institution of the church, how can there be a law supporting or denying it? Seperation of Church & State, hrmm hrrm?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 02, 2009, 10:52:46 AM
Meaning the church has the right to deny marriage to homosexual couples, and the state has no right to intervene in that decision.  The government shouldn't have to get involved.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on May 02, 2009, 11:47:31 AM
You're still confused. Marriage is not a church-only deal.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on May 02, 2009, 12:02:07 PM
You're still confused. Marriage is not a church-only deal.

It should be.

As a Christian, I stand by the following statement: "Love the sinner, hate the sin". As such, we have an obligation to sincerely accept everyone around us while still acknowledging that all sin is equally wrong, and is never to be "given in" to. Society has been sliding down a slippery, leftward-leaning slope on this particular issue over the last fortysomething years. Not to sound entirely pessimistic towards the state of humanity's affairs, but it's become apparent that every issue to become tolerated by society (ie. same-sex marriage, abortion), opens the door for another, more extreme issue to rear its ugly head before mankind. For instance, just wait until these guys get their way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA).

Anyways, this picture seems relatively topical. Note that the second-last "scenario" in the below diagram is indeed a lame hentai joke, but, otherwise... yeah. It speaks for itself:

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsick%2A%2A%2A%2A%2A%2A%2A.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F10%2Fsupport_love.jpg&hash=1f39018a7c275addd3a47fef7ceba2b8)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on May 02, 2009, 01:15:29 PM
As a Christian, I stand by the following statement: "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
There's not really anywhere in the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 02, 2009, 01:34:06 PM
Quote from: Leviticus 18:25
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on May 02, 2009, 01:41:52 PM
Tenjewberrymud for the Biblical backup, Turtlekid.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 02, 2009, 01:47:41 PM
Turtlekid1, Leviticus also says not to eat shellfish and/or pork...do you take that seriously?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on May 02, 2009, 01:55:16 PM
Not eating shellfish or pork is more part of Judaism (as with the rest of Leviticus); it doesn't apply to Christian believers, as Jesus and Paul said.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 02, 2009, 02:04:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on May 02, 2009, 02:08:25 PM
Conveniently enough, it seems that Jesus himself made no specific reference to homosexuality during his ministry. Now, before anyone twists that factoid into a green light signal for gay marriage, keep in mind that Jesus never mentioned rape, pedophilia or necrophilia either.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on May 02, 2009, 02:39:51 PM
During the time the Bible was written, people's understanding of the world was primitive. The only reason that "spilling a seed" was condemned because they did not know of eggs and ovulation, believing that the man's semen was the child in of itself. Masturbation was conclusively murder. They also lived in a time where their numbers were scarce and preventing the population from growing was treason. From a pamphlet I once read about homosexuality and the Bible:

"The Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it."
He also says the Biblical authors believed the earth was flat and the sun moved up and down.

"There is a growing body of evidence from science, psychology, history, psychiatry, medicine, and personal experience that leads to a clear verdict: Homosexuality is neither a sickness nor a sin. Unfortunately, the church has always been slow, if not the last institution on earth, to accept new truth."

We cannot depend solely on the Bible, which we all know is thousands of years outdated, to strictly run our lives. It can be used as guidance, like "love your neighbor," "give thanks to your parents," simple stuff like that. But our understanding of the world has grown so much now; the customs developed then can't always apply to us. I have a Jewish friend who, once on Passover, ate a muffin sandwich with eggs and bacon. ("Triple whammy!" he said) He told me that pigs are not considered kosher because they were dirty and thus diseased. Meat and dairy shouldn't be eaten together because the animal cannot digest in its mother's milk. But given the way food's processed nowadays, he said, there is little chance of disease from pig meat and that the carton of milk you're drinking is most likely not related the steak you're eating. We also consider pedophilia and necrophilia taboo as well, even though it isn't mentioned in the Bible. And the difference between homosexuality and rape is that there is no love in rape and it could very well be a threat to the victim's life.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 02, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Science, psychology, history, psychiatry, medicine, and personal experience don't determine whether something is sinful.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on May 02, 2009, 02:48:04 PM
Way to copy and paste and not read the rest of the post.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on May 02, 2009, 02:49:44 PM
Definite "sin". One person's morals may not be the same as another's.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 02, 2009, 02:55:55 PM
People don't determine morals in much the same way that science doesn't determine sin.

Also, I did read the rest of your post.  You were raising and "resolving" irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  And you'll excuse me if I don't accept a pamphlet as the authority on the authors of the Bible.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: NintendoExpert89 on May 02, 2009, 02:59:51 PM
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."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 02, 2009, 03:01:35 PM
And I was saying that the rules don't change because our understanding of the world does.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on May 02, 2009, 04:41:37 PM
According to your religion.

According to the rest of us, it does. Now quit acting like you're right by default, friggin' Bible-belter. |:\
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on May 02, 2009, 05:13:08 PM
There's not really anywhere in the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin.
Quote from: Leviticus 18:25
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. |:\
Quote from: Wikipedia
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.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: nensondubois on May 02, 2009, 06:26:25 PM
No, I see it too but I tend to keep quiet.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 02, 2009, 07:04:18 PM
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.

Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on May 02, 2009, 07:44:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on May 02, 2009, 07:47:00 PM
"Goodness" and "truth" are such vague concepts it's kinda hard to abhor anything.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on May 02, 2009, 07:50:53 PM
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
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on May 02, 2009, 08:07:05 PM
"Truth" is probably objective.

"Goodness" is definitely subjective.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on May 02, 2009, 09:41:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on May 02, 2009, 09:45:45 PM
Turtlekid is simply standing for what he knows to be true, and for that I commend him as well.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 02, 2009, 09:47:37 PM
No one is having a debate to have their views changed.  They're having a debate to uphold their existing beliefs.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on May 02, 2009, 10:26:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nintendoobsessed on May 03, 2009, 02:19:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on May 03, 2009, 02:42:21 PM
It's not a question of how the world and its general views have changed. Genuine Christians strive to live by God's word, whatever that may be. That being said, Jesus cited the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity) as one of the greatest commandments, beneath only the call to love the Lord. Put into practice, an example would be how our church openly accepts homosexuals into the congregation, but would never perform a gay marriage.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 03, 2009, 04:55:00 PM
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.

It. is. a. choice.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: SolidShroom on May 03, 2009, 05:02:06 PM
Turtlekid1, you should try to be gay.  Really try.  Give it a few of weeks.  Go on a date.  Watch some gay entertainment.  Look longingly into your dates eyes for several minutes.  Make out.  Enjoy it.  Want to do it again.  Be gay.

If you can force yourself to be gay, really gay, then it is a choice.  If you can't decide to be gay then someone who is gay probably can't just decide to be straight.  If you find it impossible to change your sexual orientation then stop calling others people's orientation a choice.

Do this sound like a fair challenge? 
How exactly has this discussion even continued past this post? I mean, really?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on May 03, 2009, 05:13:04 PM
The post another one of those things to pretend doesn't exist in order to achieve holy perfection, probably.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 03, 2009, 05:22:10 PM
...what?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 03, 2009, 06:08:32 PM
It. is. a. choice.

Um...my best friend is a homosexual. He's also a Christian and has done everything in his power to like women. Sorry, but it is impossible for a homosexual to like women.

If it is a choice, why don't you try being gay for a little bit?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 03, 2009, 06:11:05 PM
1. So because one person tried and failed, it's impossible for anyone?
2. Because it's morally wrong.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on May 03, 2009, 06:37:23 PM
Did anyone else watch "The Making of Me:  John Barrowman"?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on May 03, 2009, 09:34:08 PM
The idea that you get to choose what makes you get an erection sounds pretty freakin' stupid...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 04, 2009, 05:50:20 AM
THANK YOU!

I couldn't think of the correct words to say. Bird Person pretty much summed it up with that statement.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 04, 2009, 08:25:28 AM
The idea that you get to choose what makes you get an erection sounds pretty freakin' stupid...

Perhaps you misunderstand me.  I didn't mean that who a person has feelings for is entirely a conscious choice (but part of it is); rather, how you act on your feelings is a conscious choice.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: SolidShroom on May 04, 2009, 12:03:43 PM
So doing the right thing means simply rejecting one's feelings and bottling them up inside if they don't agree with The Bible? Keep in mind that if someone is truly really only attracted to men, however gets married to a woman, the end result just seems to me like a disaster. Something's gotta give.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 04, 2009, 12:10:16 PM
The world is overpopulated enough as it is. The last thing we need is every homosexual person deciding to abandon their true feelings and make more children. The world can't possibly support 9,000,000,000 people (the estimated population in 2040).

"Be fruitful and multiply" indeed.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on May 04, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
They were saying the same thing about supporting six billion people a hundred years ago, y'know.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on May 04, 2009, 02:03:57 PM
Right, so just as long as we have people who are concerned about population level, their fears are never going to be realized! IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 04, 2009, 02:06:37 PM
Did you know that you could take every person on this earth and fit them all into an area the size of Texas?

So doing the right thing means simply rejecting one's feelings and bottling them up inside if they don't agree with The Bible? Keep in mind that if someone is truly really only attracted to men, however gets married to a woman, the end result just seems to me like a disaster. Something's gotta give.

Doing the right thing means deciding that God's law is more important than your personal preferences.

If someone is truly only attracted to men, he shouldn't get married at all, if it would indeed end up a disaster to get married to a woman.  

Not everyone gets married, whether gay or straight.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on May 04, 2009, 02:14:15 PM
Quote
Doing the right thing means deciding that God's law is more important than your personal preferences.

Not according to people who don't believe in God.

Do us all a favor Truttle and quit acting like your beliefs are absolute fact. They aren't. There's no real evidence other than your insurmountable stubborness. Same goes for Weegee.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 04, 2009, 02:17:04 PM
Let's not get into one of these "YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE" fights.  Both sides will lose, I promise you.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on May 04, 2009, 02:20:58 PM
Well, I'm not gonna claim that there's no evidence of a God existing, but I'm certainly to say that the beliefs around God are inconclusive, and I feel that as humans we should try and avoid making ourselves appear to be able to comprehend something that's clearly eons above us. Whatever deity's up there in the cosmos, we're practically ants compared to it. It shouldn't be any of our concern.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 04, 2009, 03:04:29 PM
Did you know that you could take every person on this earth and fit them all into an area the size of Texas?

It doesn't matter though! We're not running out of space, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF RESOURCES!

Let's face it, things are bad enough already. There are so many children in this world without food, water, electricity, and other vital resources. 6,000,000,000 is too [darn] high and 9,000,000,000 will be utterly unsustainable.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 04, 2009, 03:14:34 PM
Did you know that oil is continually being produced underground?  That trees can be planted again?  That water is constantly recycled?  That living creatures reproduce?

What resources are we running out of?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chupperson Weird on May 04, 2009, 03:31:47 PM
So what happens when the rate of resource consumption becomes greater than the rate of resource renewal? i.e., the current situation on Earth?
Whether you realize it or not, trees do not grow as fast as chainsaws cut them down. The petroleum underground was produced by plankton millions of years ago. That's why you find it in places that aren't oceans anymore. Theoretically it's still being produced but not at a rate equal or greater to our rate of consumption. Earth's atmosphere and oceans can remove a lot of pollutants from water, but nature isn't able to remove all the harmful manmade substances from it, especially not stuff like the horrible plastic soup in the ocean. No, water treatment plants really do not sufficiently clean water either. You can't remove radioactive isotopes from the rivers and lakes they're using to cool nuclear power plants. We're running out of rare earth minerals because we're close to having mined them all for use in lasers and LCD televisions. All these parts of the ecosystem will take millions of years to return to their proper balance if we ever manage to stop screwing things up. In short, learn science.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on May 04, 2009, 04:12:42 PM
Did you know that oil is continually being produced underground?  That trees can be planted again?  That water is constantly recycled?  That living creatures reproduce?

What resources are we running out of?
Oil, trees, water, and living creatures.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on May 04, 2009, 04:32:47 PM
Hey

Aren't zombies great?

I mean... all dey do is eat... and eat... and eat... growing in number... just like you good... red white and blue Americans... ptooie
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 04, 2009, 05:33:35 PM
Someone is waiting on pins and needles for Dead Rising 2...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nintendoobsessed on May 06, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
It. is. a. choice.

Since I can't put more then 1 quote in a reply, this is from Luigison:

"Turtlekid1, you should try to be gay.  Really try.  Give it a few of weeks.  Go on a date.  Watch some gay entertainment.  Look longingly into your dates eyes for several minutes.  Make out.  Enjoy it.  Want to do it again.  Be gay.

If you can force yourself to be gay, really gay, then it is a choice.  If you can't decide to be gay then someone who is gay probably can't just decide to be straight.  If you find it impossible to change your sexual orientation then stop calling others people's orientation a choice.

Do this sound like a fair challenge?"
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on May 06, 2009, 01:45:54 PM
Since I can't put more then 1 quote in a reply

Yes you can.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 06, 2009, 02:03:16 PM
In any case, I don't think I as a human being could deny an innocent person their basic right to love somebody.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 06, 2009, 02:26:47 PM
No one is innocent.  Other than grace, that is the primary message of the Bible.

Since I can't put more then 1 quote in a reply, this is from Luigison:

"Turtlekid1, you should try to be gay.  Really try.  Give it a few of weeks.  Go on a date.  Watch some gay entertainment.  Look longingly into your dates eyes for several minutes.  Make out.  Enjoy it.  Want to do it again.  Be gay.

If you can force yourself to be gay, really gay, then it is a choice.  If you can't decide to be gay then someone who is gay probably can't just decide to be straight.  If you find it impossible to change your sexual orientation then stop calling others people's orientation a choice.

Do this sound like a fair challenge?"

I've responded to this before.  This is my last time explaining it, so PLEASE pay attention this time.

The desire to practice sodomy is an inclination.  Yes, some people will be pre-disposed towards it.  Some people are, unfortunately, exposed to circumstances from birth that cause them to think that way.  The choice comes in when they choose to either give in to or resist the sinful temptation.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on May 06, 2009, 02:43:21 PM
And live a lie their whole life, pretending to love members of the opposite sex? How exactly is that good or virtuous?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nintendoobsessed on May 06, 2009, 02:56:03 PM
And live a lie their whole life, pretending to love members of the opposite sex? How exactly is that good or virtuous?

Well, it doesn't really matter what you want! It's all about how the Bible controls your life!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Captain Jim on May 06, 2009, 03:41:58 PM
.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on May 06, 2009, 03:42:44 PM
Well, it doesn't really matter what you want! It's all about how God controls your life!

Fixed.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Captain Jim on May 06, 2009, 03:43:44 PM
That still feels broken. More so than before.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 06, 2009, 04:02:20 PM
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Lucario and John!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on May 06, 2009, 05:17:35 PM
No one is innocent.  Other than grace, that is the primary message of the Bible.

I've responded to this before.  This is my last time explaining it, so PLEASE pay attention this time.

The desire to practice sodomy is an inclination.  Yes, some people will be pre-disposed towards it.  Some people are, unfortunately, exposed to circumstances from birth that cause them to think that way.  The choice comes in when they choose to either give in to or resist the sinful temptation.
I partly agree, but think that some recent research suggests that the predisposition actually starts before birth.  There is a fairly strong correlation between homosexuality and the amount of testosterone received during pregnancy that can even be noticed in the ratio of ring to index fingers.  Further, when women have multiple male children each baby receives less testosterone than the previous one and is more likely to be homosexual.   This could be because the mother doesn't have enough testosterone for successive births, the mother's body rejects each "foreign" male in the womb more strongly, or evolution has built in homosexuality as a population control.  I also think that most exposure after birth is predominantly heterosexual.  Specifically, a student committed suicide because he could no longer deal with homosexual feelings in a family and church that specifically forbid such.  It really upset me when the preacher at his funeral basically preached about how suicide and homosexuality are wrong. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on May 06, 2009, 05:20:12 PM
Prayers for Bobby?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: bullykoopa96 on May 06, 2009, 06:17:30 PM
I am a Catholic and am religious to an extent

But I think it's a crock of **** that ANYBODY could believe that you have a choice, and that its possible to be "fixed".  It's not a sinful temptation, and yes research has proven that more than likely its something you're born with, and you will keep it no matter how much denial you are in.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: sadib100 on July 29, 2009, 12:32:40 AM
I say we should be allowed to marry whoever we want to. If I want to marry my dad and my dog, you have no right to get in my way.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on July 29, 2009, 05:48:08 AM
It's probably too late to ask for a citation on that, eh bullykoopa? Mah, I'm not that interested anyway.

I personally believe strongly in a conflict between conditioning and sociological norms.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on July 30, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
While I'm not flat out against gay marriage, I believe it should ultimately be left up to state voting.

I also still think that homosexuality should still be classified as a mental illness. I don't think they're bad people, but I just think it matches the definition of a mental illness.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on July 30, 2009, 01:01:32 AM
I probably already said something similar to this a while back somewhere, but meh: Marriage in America currently exists as a joint operation between the church and the state. As things stand now, we can't legalize gay marriage, because if the state changed the definition of marriage from what it's been here pretty much since the founding of America, it would essentially be dictating to the church what they have to believe. If you want gay marriage, or something similar, you'd first have to split the concept of marriage up -- making the word "marriage" refer to a solely personal religious institution, which each church or group of churches (or mosques or synagogues or whatever) can define on their own, and put all the legal benefits of what we currently call marriage into a contract, overseen by the government, that any two people can make with each other.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on July 30, 2009, 01:07:18 AM
Well put. I love it when actual solutions are conceptualized.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on July 30, 2009, 01:23:48 AM
Well yes it is nice, but I thought the point of the thread was to express your own views on whether or not gays should be able to wed.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on July 30, 2009, 02:21:37 AM
Gays should be able to wed. I still consider myself a Christian (although my faith is dwindling as noted in the religion topic a while back) but it's not my business to tell people how to live. That is, I'm not an evangelist.

Forest Guy, how is homosexuality a mental illness? Please elaborate. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on July 30, 2009, 03:29:06 AM
Forest Guy: The usual complaint about gay marriage is that it's a religious institution and it's against the biblical definition. By forming parallel definitions, one of marriage and one of the aforementioned "contract," you solve both problems in one stroke. In theory, this would make gays getting 'married' mere lax terminology-- the real marriage would stay with the church. Yes, this would alienate homosexuals from the religious sort of marriage, but I'm sure somebody can make some new denomination which outlines the fact that marriage between homosexuals should be fine if they fail to "consummate" it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on July 30, 2009, 08:13:48 AM
This "contract" already exists.  It's called a civil union.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on July 30, 2009, 11:41:51 AM
I was kind of skirting around that. Perhaps if it was rebranded, officials wouldn't run the risk of losing their election by misunderstanding voters.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on July 30, 2009, 05:57:32 PM
I have a good argument, but it's gonna take a while to write out, so I'll do it later since I have to get to the gym soon.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Glorb on August 01, 2009, 02:20:08 PM
I think Forest Guy was accidentally dropped here from the 1950s. Does that answer your question PL?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on August 01, 2009, 08:49:56 PM
To save myself time, I'm gonna map it out in standard logic form like this.



-The definition of a mental illness is any mental state that impairs one's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning.

-Ignoring alternative lifestyle advocacy, the normal behavioral human functioning is to be heterosexual, simply because humans as a species (or any sexually reproducing lifeform) could not physically exist without it being a normal function.

-Homosexuality is a naturally occurring mental state that a human is born with.

-Despite the fact you can adopt a child or use artificial insemination, hypothetically a human's normal behavior (i.e. reproducing) cannot take place if they are homosexual, simply because they will never be able to have children.

-Therefore, because homosexuality, a mental state, interrupts the normal course of human behavior, it matches the definition of a mental state.


Now before I'm branded a homophobe or someone restates I lived in the 1950s(???), you have to realize this is a purely logical argument. I'm not stating that gays are bad people or that they should be deprived of the rights or normal people, I simply believe it's foolish to ignore sound facts simply to appease the group associated with it. Temporary Anxiety is classified as a mental illness. I occasionally suffer from bouts of anxiety. Do I like the fact you could tell me I have a mental illness and be correct? Not really, and a lot of people wouldn't just because it has a negative connotation typically. However, that doesn't mean anxiety shouldn't be classified as a mental illness anymore.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on August 01, 2009, 09:00:02 PM
That supposedly-enigmatic "50's" comment refers to the then-common belief that homosexuality was a mental illness. I'm not saying that I entirely disagree, though. Just clarifying.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Forest Guy on August 01, 2009, 10:35:21 PM
Ohh, gotcha. My bad. It went right over my head, so I was seriously confused by it. I didn't get it since they didn't actually change that classificiation up until the late 80s I believe.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jmdblazer on April 05, 2011, 12:11:07 AM
Over the past few years since I've posted in this topic, my views on homosexuality have completely changed. I've gone from simply parroting what my parents have told me to actually forming an opinion of my own. After a friend "came out" to me, I was conflicted in my beliefs, but I now fully accept homosexuals for who they are, and I have changed my vote from "it's flat out wrong" to "I accept them."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on April 05, 2011, 12:27:19 AM
My views changed when a friend came out to me as well. It's great to hear that you've changed your mind because there are enough cruel people in this world who despise them.

I tolerate them as human beings. I don't like homosexuality in general, but it is their choice and I'm not supposed to judge them. They are free to do as they wish as long as they don't try and make a huge deal about it (*coughChrisCrockercough*).

I've gone from "tolerance" to complete acceptance of gays, and I also encourage people to explore their sexuality. You never know what you might like.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: coolkid on April 06, 2011, 02:41:52 PM
I accept it. Why not, you know?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: jmdblazer on April 07, 2011, 12:14:41 AM
I believe it's comparable to how African Americans were treated for the longest time. It's a belief that's been passed down for generations, and only now is that belief starting to be overridden by widespread acceptance and understanding

Another explanation is the fact that the bible condemns men "[lying] with a man as one lies with a woman," but even then I don't understand the hate. Whatever happened to"love thy neighbor as thyself?"
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on April 07, 2011, 01:23:41 AM
The fun thing is that rednecks used to use the Bible as justification to persecute black people, too. KKK still does.

Dat's Amerikin as apple pie, dat is
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on April 07, 2011, 02:16:39 AM
It's really not enough to appeal to the Bible. I mean I could look at any religious text and point out a justification for hurting someone.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Insane Steve on April 07, 2011, 04:38:18 PM
Here's my counter-argument to anyone who says sexuality is a choice:

If it were, I'd be bi, not straight.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on April 07, 2011, 05:02:49 PM
That whole "choice" argument is rather silly. Homosexuals are ostracized and made to feel less than human by their peers. Why would anyone willingly "choose" to subject themselves to that?

Rather, being a homophobe is a choice and a disgusting one at that. I used to be one and I hate myself for it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on April 07, 2011, 05:36:02 PM
One could make any number of cases as to why anyone would choose that. Attention grab, trying to be different, stick it to God, whatever.

What really makes the idea that you choose your sexuality a silly one is that it implies that one has control over what turns them on. Anyone who has ever had a boner should see the problem there.

But even then, to accept that you can't doesn't mean it's over, because the other side can argue that the choice comes into play when deciding whether to submit to or abstain from it. Except they don't. Homophobes don't care if gay people engage in absolutely no homosexual activity, they think it's something that can be changed, that homosexual can be conditioned to become heterosexual if they just try.

That's nuts
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on April 07, 2011, 05:37:47 PM
At least gays are easy to identify. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijbovskICjk)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on April 07, 2011, 07:47:39 PM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2024%2F2466057515_03421d811d_o.jpg&hash=901cd2d0996f9c5dda1c633066ec841e)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: coolkid on April 07, 2011, 09:25:32 PM
At least gays are easy to identify. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijbovskICjk)

I love the description to that video.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 30, 2011, 01:20:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqv-y5Ys3fg.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 30, 2011, 01:52:54 PM
YouTube doesn't want to cooperate with my connection right now.  It finally worked, and I still have to ask: what's this about?  Is there a point, or...?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on September 30, 2011, 03:04:12 PM
It's a video about you.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on September 30, 2011, 03:06:28 PM
Oh?  I mean, I know I'm sort of a creeper, but I don't smile quite that weirdly.  And I don't have pierced ears.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on September 30, 2011, 04:32:03 PM
Awesome video.  The inclusion of Michael Shermer was perfect. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a subscriber to Skeptic magazine, own a "Science Rules" skeptic shirt, and have used one of Michael Shermer's talks as to generate discussion in previous honors science classes. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on September 30, 2011, 09:10:02 PM
YouTube doesn't want to cooperate with my connection right now.  It finally worked, and I still have to ask: what's this about?  Is there a point, or...?

It's trying to demonstrate the absurdity of asserting that sexual preference is a choice. If it is a choice, straight people ought to be able to arbitrarily "go gay" whenever they want.

Now it is a choice to act on these preferences, but then again...so is eating, sleeping, straight sex, and a lot of other things we don't deem morally impermissible.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on October 07, 2011, 06:04:22 PM
CrossEyed7, I am curious as to how you feel about the video you posted.  Feel free to enlighten or ignore my curiosity. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 07, 2011, 07:03:23 PM
I'm pretty sure he posted it with good intentions.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 08, 2011, 12:09:18 AM
My stance on the topic has changed quite a bit since three years ago:

Also I thought the video was funny.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: TEM on October 08, 2011, 11:15:14 AM
What I find strange is the fact that the Choice Vs. Genetics argument is a big deal; as if it's some kind of turning point in the debate. So what if homosexuals choose to be gay? It's only of relevance when religious hatred lurks in the background, waiting to condemn and decry any that admit (or are revealed) to be operating under freewill. As for the non-christians having homophobic tendencies, I strongly feel the only reason they are there to begin with is a deeply rooted religious moral 'diaspora' in our society. Even if they don't believe they still have the moral inundation.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Cora on January 04, 2012, 01:42:29 PM
Well, having first hand experience, I will tell you that had it been a choice, I would see no point in choosing to be homosexual (lol "let's choose to be one of the most discriminated against groups in our time", kinda like when I "chose" to be Jewish). I begin to feel that people don't consider that, if it were a choice, why would everyone be choosing it when in some cities, you get tied to a tree and beaten for being gay? (Sadly, i'm not just making that it. It happened to my best friend, here.)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on January 04, 2012, 09:33:17 PM
As one who's been on both sides of the Christians vs. Gays debate, I believe part of where the confusion comes is that the standard conservative Christian viewpoint is supposed to separate between homosexual activity ("sin") and homosexual feelings ("temptation"). You can't control what you're tempted by, but you can control how you respond to temptation (or as Luther said, you can't stop birds from landing on your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair). So when conservative Christians talk about "being gay", it's supposed to mean having one or more gay relationships, or at least actively, intentionally entertaining thoughts thereof, whereas when gay people say "I can't stop being gay," they're referring to the feelings.

In most cases*, the feelings cannot be significantly changed -- this has been shown scientifically, and it agrees with orthodox Christian doctrine. The problem arises when definitions are not kept clear and communication is garbled (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).

Doctrinally, conservative Christians who believe that homosexual activity is a sin** ought to treat it as any other sin. In practice, this is never the case, as American Christians allow themselves to be highly influenced by the homophobic tendencies of the natural, worldly, secular society. The knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality for most heterosexual people is "Ew, gross." And most American conservative Christians look at the one or two verses in the Bible that appear to label homosexuality as sinful and take them as confirmation of their natural tendency, rather than allowing themselves to be transformed by the renewing of their mind. I mean, someone can stand up during a Bible study or prayer circle or whatever and say that they're struggling with greed, or anger, or slothfulness, or rebellion, or gluttony, or even porn, but if anyone ever says they're struggling with homosexuality, they get driven out of town for it, because at a gut level, we don't think it's a choice -- if you've got those feelings, then that means you're one of them. The temptation and the sin get conflated, in part because everything the fundamentalist/evangelical conservative Christian believes is put at the same level. The existence of God, his denomination's view on soteriology, his personal feelings about homosexuality, the United States Constitution -- they all have Bible verses to support them, and the Bible is the infallible word of God, so that means all of those things, all of his opinions, are infallible.

If homosexuals are sinners, then first of all, they ought to be treated the same as all sinners (a group that includes everyone ever, including Christians), and if they need to be saved from their sins, it should be done with love, not condemnation. The only people Christ spoke condemningly of when he was on earth were hypocritical religious leaders. When he spoke to Gentiles -- the outsiders, basically the contemporary equivalent of non-Christians -- it was to encourage them, to comfort them, to heal them, to commend their faith. Jesus didn't yell at unbelievers about how they're going to hell because they don't believe the right things. When he talked about hell (literally Gehenna, which was Jerusalem's city dump), it was a place for hypocrites who claimed to be righteous followers of God yet never followed through on it by loving their neighbors.

Whether homosexuality is a sin or not, the sin Jesus would be concerned about is the utter lack of love from so many of those who name themselves after him.



*- Most people are probably at least slightly bisexual, but in the majority, one side or the other is clearly dominant and relative levels of attraction are rather stable. "Conversion therapy" does not work for those who would not have been open to the other side anyway (these are usually people who are relatively in the middle who would probably best be identified as bi, for whom there kinda is a choice -- you can't chose to not be attracted to both genders, but you can decide to stick to one or the other; you can "pass" as either one without having to date people you aren't at all interested in).

**- There is no sound, internally consistent biblical argument to say that inadvertent homosexual feelings and desires are sinful. Orthodox Christianity has always held that it is not sinful to be subject to temptation, or else Jesus, who was "in all ways tempted like we are" (Heb 4:15), could not be a sinless sacrifice, and the whole thing kinda falls apart. And with so few mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, it's pretty difficult to argue that it's at some much higher level of sin than the others, the way we tend to treat it. If any sin is at that level of egregiousness, it would probably be oppressing and/or ignoring orphans, widows, the poor, and similar vulnerable groups, the sin that's mentioned just about everywhere in the Old and New Testaments.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Cora on January 04, 2012, 09:51:22 PM
Seconded. I am both catholic and homosexual (wow, I've never felt like trollbait this hard before) and I myself think that If Jesus wouldnt hate gays, neither should christians (being like, followers of Jesus :P)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on January 04, 2012, 10:15:10 PM
That post does a pretty good job of highlighting what's wrong with a lot of fundamentalists' views on the matter, how people tend to point fingers while also harboring personal feelings of hatred toward the people rather than the sin.  I agree with the admonishments (if not some of the presuppositions behind them) right up until the very last sentence.  Maybe I'm interpreting it wrongly, but it almost seems as if you're suggesting that because one group is dealing with another group's sins in an ungodly way, it justifies the sins of the accused.  That's not right either.  You seem to be implying throughout the post that no one sin is inherently worse than any other (which could be debated if you take into account the nature and consequences of the sin) but then you also imply in that last sentence that speaking with condemnation rather than love is more cursed than the sin being spoken against.

Speaking of condemnation, there's a bit of a false dichotomy going on here - the choice between men's loving sinners and men's condemning sinners.  If you believe the Bible (which is a whole 'nother issue in and of itself), you're already going to recognize that God, not man, has already condemned sin; and that He commands men to judge with right judgment.  Not only is it that men aren't the ones doing the condemning, but it's also that judgment of sin and love of the sinner are not mutually exclusive (and of course there's the fact that if you're really loving your neighbor as yourself, you're going to do your best to tell them where they're erring now rather than when it's too late).  To say that something is a sin is to condemn it.  You have to find what's wrong before you can fix it.

Also (http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5918:The-Homo-Thing&catid=84:sex-and-culture) relevant (http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5919:The-Homo-Lobby-and-Hatred-Inflation&catid=84:sex-and-culture)?

On this count, however, you're absolutely right: the church needs to shape up, because we're really the ones at fault for pretty much every problem in society today.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on January 04, 2012, 11:25:23 PM
Maybe I'm interpreting it wrongly, but it almost seems as if you're suggesting that because one group is dealing with another group's sins in an ungodly way, it justifies the sins of the accused.
The point I was trying to convey is just that, while it is possible to believe homosexuality is a sin and still be charitable, mainstream conservative Christianity is failing rather hard at the charitable part, and we ought to be dealing with that eye-plank first. Basically what you said, "judgment of sin and love of the sinner are not mutually exclusive."

I probably came off as also implying that deviation from heterosexuality is not necessarily sinful (understandable, considering that's what I believe), but in the post, I sort of tried to make my position more of a "no comment, for now"

Quote
but then you also imply in that last sentence that speaking with condemnation rather than love is more cursed than the sin being spoken against.
If the sin is worse, it's because of who the sinner is. As Rob Bell put it, "Why blame the dark for being dark? It is far more helpful to ask why the light isn't as bright as it could be." Christians are meant to be, and claim to be, light to a dying world. When we don't shine that light, it has a bigger impact than when dark continues to be dark. Quite possibly the biggest topic Jesus spoke about was hypocrisy -- it's one thing to not love one's neighbor, but to not love one's neighbor while claiming to be a follower of the god who told you to love your neighbor is another. A non-Christian who doesn't follow the will of God is at least acting honestly.

I'm reminded of when James said "Not many of you should become teachers, for we know teachers will be judged by a higher standard" -- someone who claims to know the way, and tells other people to follow them, is going to get in bigger trouble if they don't really know it. In a sense, that applies to Christians in general -- if we're going to be the ones who say we know the way God wants everyone to go, we better be sure. He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Quote
(and of course there's the fact that if you're really loving your neighbor as yourself, you're going to do your best to tell them where they're erring now rather than when it's too late).  To say that something is a sin is to condemn it.  You have to find what's wrong before you can fix it.
And on this point, I would probably have to generally agree with you in spirit and then get into a debate over whether homosexuality specifically is wrong.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: penguinwizard on January 25, 2012, 09:26:55 PM
Love that the majority of people here accept it. I have the view that I accept it without question, but I might be slightly unnerved to see it in action (no thanks to the media of yesteryear making it seem unusual or a joke), and my orientation's still up in the air (I'm some level of gay, but I haven't been meeting people to actually find out. To my knowledge I'm straight). I do want to accept, though, which I've started with my beliefs. And yes, I have three gay [online] friends.

Mostly it just frustrates me that religion seems to be the only argument given against homosexuality. Sorry, but religion's not a good enough reason for me, some of the beliefs given may be outdated or be the work of a person's interpretation or opinion. It gives me the impression that the only opposers are those who are intolerant, not even briefly considering that a gay person or gay couple can be good. I don't foresee a bunch of homosexual couples causing widespread chaos or burned-down cities. There shouldn't be any disease outbreak either, but I'd think people would be smart enough by now to know how to take care of themselves. It's worse when trying to force intolerant opinions on a large group of people. I thought we were past that, to celebrate diversity... and to not make a big deal out of it so that we're all treated as equals.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on February 28, 2012, 06:01:23 PM
Y'know, I have to admit, Rick Santorum's sexual positions are more internally consistent in their logic than the average Republican's.

Everyone has to draw a line -- or erect a wall, if you will -- between sexual activity they consider permissible and sexual activity they consider wrong. Santorum draws the line at procreative sex with one's one and only spouse. Sex is either on the inside of that wall and okay, or outside of that wall and wrong. That's why, to him, breaking down the wall between heterosexuality and homosexuality, or even the acceptance of condoms and birth control pills (even for married couples), would also bring pedophilia and incest and bestiality into the fold -- it's all non-procreative sex (or at least, as in cases of hebephilia or orgies or polygamy, sex with someone who's not your singular spouse), and while that doesn't make it all identical, they do share the fundamental quality of being from the wrong side of the wall.

Santorum doesn't seem to realize or accept, though, that there are other legitimate places to put the wall (at least when talking about secular governmental policy). Traditionally, most people have just drawn that line around "stuff I like" to exclude "stuff I don't like", but increasingly today, most people put the wall up around sex between two consenting, fully-informed adults, who are in agreement as to the nature of their relationship. That allows for homosexuality, contraception (without even necessarily including abortion), and even old or otherwise infertile people (something that, strictly speaking, Santorum's wall shouldn't include), while still solidly excluding bestiality, pedophilia, sex in public parks, and adultery.

But most Republicans are okay with preventative contraception, but not with gay sex and/or marriage. When you really think about it, that makes about as much sense as being pro-choice and against adult prostitution. If you've already made the concession that it's legal for sex, within a committed monogamous relationship, to be purely for the pleasure of the two lovers rather than having to be about procreation, it's much harder to justify excluding homosexuality between consenting adults (again, at least from the perspective of secular law).



Also: the debate really isn't about the "sanctity of marriage." As I've said before, if it were really about that, then there'd be at least as much stink raised, if not more, over divorce, yet even Santorum doesn't talk much about divorce. It's about the definition of marriage. The thing is, though, the reason we can even talk about gay marriage as a possibility is because the definition has already changed. In Bible times (specifically, in the times depicted in the first six or seven books of the Old Testament) and in colonial America times, marriage was about making lots of babies so you could populate the promised land, have lots of farmhands, and make up for the infant mortality rate, and also as pretty much the only way for women to not starve to death, and maybe you grew to like each other too along the way. Today, in a more comfortably harnessed world, marriage is primarily about a romantic connection between two independent equals -- ideally, for life -- and maybe you decide together to raise some kids. Santorum, to his credit, disparages this idea and is trying to get us to go back to the pre-modern definition.

However, while his position is more internally consistent than the hobbled-together political compromise that most Republicans hold to, it's not necessarily more biblical. The Bible never explicitly prescribes marriage as being exclusively or even primarily about procreation. In the Old Testament, you've got the Song of Songs, which is all about the pleasure of sex, not so much about having kids. And then in the New Testament, you have both Jesus and Paul saying that, while it's good to go it alone if you're able, if you can't make it alone -- or if you can't resist your sexual urges -- then you should go ahead and get married. Neither of them mention babymaking as a top priority. Even in the story of Adam and Eve, their relationship is not exclusively about populating the world -- it's just as much, if not more, about their relationship to each other. The general nameless faceless account of creation in chapter 1 says that God told men and women to go have kids, but in the more personal story in chapter 2, procreation isn't mentioned -- Eve was created to be Adam's companion, as an intellectual equal. Babymaking came after that, as a consequence of the love that was at the center of the relationship.

Whether homosexuality is technically immoral by biblical standards is another matter, but to say that it's a fundamentally different and immoral method of sex specifically because it can't make babies is an angle that doesn't seem to be supported by scripture.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on February 28, 2012, 06:33:30 PM
Also: the debate really isn't about the "sanctity of marriage." As I've said before, if it were really about that, then there'd be at least as much stink raised, if not more, over divorce, yet even Santorum doesn't talk much about divorce.
Again, I would point out that sometimes divorce is acceptable under Biblical principles.  The stink isn't being raised there (comparatively; although if you go to any reasonably conservative church on a Sunday it seems like you'd have pretty good odds of seeing or hearing an issue being made of it in some form) because, as much as it's abused today, there's still a place for divorce Biblically.  Not that I don't agree that married couples are splitting too often, too easily, and for the wrong reasons; because they are.  That needs to be an issue as well (in fact, if you asked Santorum what he thought of the divorce rate, he'd probably tell you it's atrocious - the stink is also not being raised there because the issue of divorce is not as likely to come up in a political campaign because it's not something that people are actually voting on right now).  But even if it were as big of an issue, that doesn't make this one any less of an issue.  A hurricane's striking Florida is not made less damaging because of an earthquake's occurring at the same time in California.

If that analogy makes any sense...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on February 28, 2012, 07:12:09 PM
A hurricane's striking Florida is not made less damaging because of an earthquake's occurring at the same time in California.
Which is homosexuality and which is divorce? 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on February 28, 2012, 08:02:40 PM
Rick Santorum's sexual positions

...hah.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on February 28, 2012, 09:40:22 PM
in fact, if you asked Santorum what he thought of the divorce rate, he'd probably tell you it's atrocious - the stink is also not being raised there because the issue of divorce is not as likely to come up in a political campaign because it's not something that people are actually voting on right now.
But contraception wasn't really an issue either until Santorum made one of it. He could have just stuck to gay marriage, but he decided to bring up contraception, and now everyone's talking about it. He's perfectly situated right now to make divorce an issue too -- for perhaps the only time in his career, he's got the media hanging on his every word -- and go whole hog on procreative marital sanctity, but he's not. He's spoken about it in the past, and he does believe divorce should be made harder to obtain, but for some reason he hasn't made it an issue at all in this campaign. Why not push for three constitutional amendments: one to ban gay marriage, one to require covenant marriages, and one to require all fertile married couples to have three children?

The Bible certainly has more to say about divorce than it does about contraception or gay marriage (though still much less than it has to say about helping orphans and widows).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on February 28, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
and one to require all fertile married couples to have three children?
What? What?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Antihack1000 on August 15, 2012, 07:29:30 PM
i have absolutley no problem with homosexuals in our society, as long as it doesnt get out of hand.

i feel that people should be able to do whatever they want as long it is within the law.
however what i DONT like is when homosexuals maker it very visible to others, a great example was at my gr8 ottawa trip when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.

bottom line: i can tolerate it
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on August 15, 2012, 08:15:10 PM
Downtown Ottawa can be a very strange place indeed.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Qwerty on August 15, 2012, 08:28:18 PM
however what i DONT like is when homosexuals maker it very visible to others

Public display of affection, perhaps? I think that goes for everybody.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on August 15, 2012, 09:05:16 PM
however what i DONT like is when homosexuals make it very visible to others, a great example was at my gr8 ottawa trip when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.

"A man walking in high heels and a dress" could imply many other things beside being gay.  That person could have been a drag queen, who performs as a woman for entertainment purposes.  Or the person could have been a cross-dresser, someone who gets (sexually) excited by wearing women's clothing.  OR the person may have been transgender, identifying as a woman despite being born biologically male, in which case they were expressing the gender that they feel most comfortable/honest as.

It's important to distinguish between the following:
biological sex = based on what genitals you have.  1 in every 2,000 births in America are intersex, meaning that they have ambiguous genitalia.  The voice actress who portrayed Meowth on Pokemon was born intersex, raised as a male, before eventually realizing that she felt female and transitioning into living as a woman.
gender identity = how you feel mentally about your gender.  Transgender people identify as a gender that does not align with their biological sex.  I have a biologically female friend who identifies as genderqueer because she feels that she is mostly female but about 40% male.  People whose biological sex aligns with their gender identity are called cisgender.  Most people are cisgender, and don't often recognize the distinction between biological sex and gender identity.
gender expression = a person's mannerisms, clothing, etc.  How a person presents themself, basically.  People can dress more masculine, feminine, or androgynous, depending on what their culture/environment considers to be more masculine/feminine.  For example, the man wearing the dress and heels appears to be presenting a feminine gender expression.  Many men have earrings (feminine/androgynous), and many women have short boyish hair (masculine or androgynous).
sexual orientation = What gender a person finds sexually/romantically/physically attractive.  This is not synonymous with gender expression.  A man can wear a dress and still be straight.  I am gay, yet I wear pants nearly every day.

I think same-sex couples should have the right to marry legally.  To specifically exclude same-sex couples from the 1,000 or so legal benefits that opposite-sex couples receive from the state not only seems unfair, but also sends the message that LGB people are "less than" or inferior to straight people, and that same-sex relationships are illegitimate or lack the same basic commitment as opposite-sex relationships.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on August 15, 2012, 09:43:55 PM
when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.

I find people who are disgusted by other humans harmlessly expressing themselves disgusting.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Antihack1000 on August 16, 2012, 06:21:39 AM
"A man walking in high heels and a dress" could imply many other things beside being gay.  That person could have been a drag queen, who performs as a woman for entertainment purposes.  Or the person could have been a cross-dresser, someone who gets (sexually) excited by wearing women's clothing.  OR the person may have been transgender, identifying as a woman despite being born biologically male, in which case they were expressing the gender that they feel most comfortable/honest as.

It's important to distinguish between the following:
biological sex = based on what genitals you have.  1 in every 2,000 births in America are intersex, meaning that they have ambiguous genitalia.  The voice actress who portrayed Meowth on Pokemon was born intersex, raised as a male, before eventually realizing that she felt female and transitioning into living as a woman.
gender identity = how you feel mentally about your gender.  Transgender people identify as a gender that does not align with their biological sex.  I have a biologically female friend who identifies as genderqueer because she feels that she is mostly female but about 40% male.  People whose biological sex aligns with their gender identity are called cisgender.  Most people are cisgender, and don't often recognize the distinction between biological sex and gender identity.
gender expression = a person's mannerisms, clothing, etc.  How a person presents themself, basically.  People can dress more masculine, feminine, or androgynous, depending on what their culture/environment considers to be more masculine/feminine.  For example, the man wearing the dress and heels appears to be presenting a feminine gender expression.  Many men have earrings (feminine/androgynous), and many women have short boyish hair (masculine or androgynous).
sexual orientation = What gender a person finds sexually/romantically/physically attractive.  This is not synonymous with gender expression.  A man can wear a dress and still be straight.  I am gay, yet I wear pants nearly every day.

I think same-sex couples should have the right to marry legally.  To specifically exclude same-sex couples from the 1,000 or so legal benefits that opposite-sex couples receive from the state not only seems unfair, but also sends the message that LGB people are "less than" or inferior to straight people, and that same-sex relationships are illegitimate or lack the same basic commitment as opposite-sex relationships.

your'e right, it could be any of those.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on August 16, 2012, 06:39:50 AM
Quote
i feel that people should be able to do whatever they want as long it is within the law.

What if the law banned homosexuality entirely?

Quote
however what i DONT like is when homosexuals maker it very visible to others,

I don't like it when straight people make it very visible to others.

Quote
a great example was at my gr8 ottawa trip when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.

Is it now?

Quote
bottom line: i can tolerate it

I don't think so, junior.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Antihack1000 on August 16, 2012, 08:32:01 AM
screw you
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on August 16, 2012, 08:42:59 AM
i have absolutley no problem with homosexuals in our society, as long as it doesnt get out of hand.
At what point would you say heterosexuals were getting "out of hand"? A boyfriend and girlfriend holding hands in public? A peck on the cheek? A brief, tongue-less kiss on the lips?

i feel that people should be able to do whatever they want as long it is within the law.
Even assuming that you're referring to first world countries with relatively low legal discrimination against LGBT people, who writes the laws? What if the laws themselves are what's in dispute? Most people believe people should follow the law -- they just then follow that up with what they think the law should be.

however what i DONT like is when homosexuals maker it very visible to others,
So you can tolerate them for as long as you can pretend they don't exist.

"I don't mind black people, so long as they paint themselves white when they go out in public."

a great example was at my gr8 ottawa trip when we were walking past a hotel and a man was walking in high heels and a dress, thats just disgusting.
Do you have the same reaction when you see a woman wearing jeans and sneakers?

screw you
Pretty sure The Chef is a guy, dude. Might want to retract that proposition.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on August 16, 2012, 02:56:51 PM
screw you

Stop being a crybaby and offer a rebuttal like an adu-

Oh wait, you're 14.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on August 16, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
From a public policy perspective: Since fertility is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license, there's no good reason that same-sex couples shouldn't get the same legal benefits of marriage that mixed-sex couples do. Where a problem might arise is that the concept of "marriage" simultaneously refers to both a legal contract administered by the government and a sacrament performed and recognized by most religions (with the exact boundaries getting a bit muddled at times), and changing one of them from the status quo may put undue pressure on the other, which would be a potential First Amendment issue either way (if the state pressures the church to recognize same-sex marriages, that's the free exercise clause; if the church pressures the state to roll back marriage equality laws, that's the establishment clause). Therefore, it may be necessary to change the name, with all the legal benefits of a marriage license being transferred to civil unions, and "marriage" becoming a word reserved for the church, and for individuals to use as they see fit.



From a religious perspective, I am no longer convinced by the traditional Christian arguments against same-sex relationships. The Bible verses used to support that view are taken out of context. (A more complete treatment is here (http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php), from a more accomplished author than me)




We can certainly disagree theologically. There are people on the other side who make very good arguments that it is immoral. However, if it is immoral, it is a victimless crime -- people in LCMSSRs are only hurting themselves, if anyone. No one is being exploited or victimized, so we shouldn't be making one-to-one comparisons with murder, rape, stealing, or other sins like that. If it is a sin, it's a personal one (And whether or not it's a sin is irrelevant to public policy anyway). If it's something to be argued over, it's to be argued over within the church -- it's not like Christian theology teaches that if we can just argue them out of that one sin, that's what will save them.



Full disclosure: I am Christian, I am bi, I am male (and pretty much cisgendered, I suppose), and I am a bit jealous that girls get so many more clothing options than us. But the traditional gender role kyriarchy is a whole nother huge story...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 02, 2012, 04:23:09 PM
Therefore, it may be necessary to change the name, with all the legal benefits of a marriage license being transferred to civil unions, and "marriage" becoming a word reserved for the church, and for individuals to use as they see fit.
Quick follow-up: This may come off sounding a bit too much like "separate but equal." I'm not saying "marriage for straights, civil unions for gays." I'm saying civil unions for any two* people who want the legal benefits that married couples currently enjoy, and marriage at whatever house of worship you choose that agrees with your definition of marriage. That is, I'm not saying "Well, okay, we'll make a little thing for the gays (and bis (and trans*es (and any other quiltbags))) on the side but make sure it doesn't spill over into Actual Marriage"; I'm saying change the name for the whole thing, for everyone -- mixed-sex couples too.

*- Polygamy/polyamory is a debate for another time. Next generation, maybe. Part of me hopes I get to see the day when that's the next big controversial fight, because if politics continue in the direction they're going now, the LDS church will be one of the biggest organizations fighting against polygamy and everyone will be like "No, don't listen to the Mormons! Polygamy is awesome!" and the Mormons will be all like "No, we need to stand for traditional marriage! One person and one other person!" and that'll be kinda funny to see. Though I'm sure the humor will wear off once people start killing each other.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on September 02, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
Quick follow-up: This may come off sounding a bit too much like "separate but equal." I'm not saying "marriage for straights, civil unions for gays." I'm saying civil unions for any two* people who want the legal benefits that married couples currently enjoy, and marriage at whatever house of worship you choose that agrees with your definition of marriage. That is, I'm not saying "Well, okay, we'll make a little thing for the gays (and bis (and trans*es (and any other quiltbags))) on the side but make sure it doesn't spill over into Actual Marriage"; I'm saying change the name for the whole thing, for everyone -- mixed-sex couples too.

*- Polygamy/polyamory is a debate for another time. Next generation, maybe. Part of me hopes I get to see the day when that's the next big controversial fight, because if politics continue in the direction they're going now, the LDS church will be one of the biggest organizations fighting against polygamy and everyone will be like "No, don't listen to the Mormons! Polygamy is awesome!" and the Mormons will be all like "No, we need to stand for traditional marriage! One person and one other person!" and that'll be kinda funny to see. Though I'm sure the humor will wear off once people start killing each other.
What if we have marriage for any two* people who want the legal benefits that married couples currently enjoy, and "religious matrimony" at whatever house of worship you choose that agrees with your definition of "marriage"?  I'm playing devils advocate here, but I think you see my point. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 02, 2012, 07:21:13 PM
Ultimately, it shouldn't really matter who gets which word, though I suppose religion could make an argument that they have more right to the word "marriage" than the government does, because their holy books mention marriage and government doesn't have holy books. And since different religions' books have different definitions of marriage, if the government uses that word and attaches a specific definition to it, it could be seen as endorsing the religion(s) whose definition matches the government.

Granted, you could use somewhat similar logic to say that the government currently endorses religions that consider murder to be a sin over religions that believe murder is good.

I don't know how necessary this would even be, though. If readings of scripture similar to mine become the norm and American Christianity at large ends up accepting LGBT people over the next couple of generations, it might just work itself out (But when polygamy comes up, we might need to split them then. There are probably quite a few legal benefits to married couples that couldn't feasibly be scaled up to arbitrarily large groups of married people, regardless of whether the relationship is considered legitimate.).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on September 02, 2012, 09:08:45 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to let same-sex couples have marriages than it would be to change all marriages to "civil unions?"

"Change it to 'civil union' for everyone if we're going to include gay people" sounds like a vague slap in the faces of people who are fighting for marriage equality.  I think the syntax battle should be separate from the same-sex couple battle.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 02, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to let same-sex couples have marriages than it would be to change all marriages to "civil unions?"
That would definitely be the ideal, and would be my preferred option. Because even if splitting marriage in two like that isn't quite echoing "separate but equal", it does at least smack of "well if I can't have it all to myself then no one can have any!"

(I don't know about "easier", though -- is any solution here actually "easy"? but i digress)

I do want to be sensitive to both sides. I know there are plenty of people who think same-sex relationships are wrong who are good, loving people with sincerely held beliefs, many of whom wish they didn't believe it -- I used to be one. Between the ages of about ten and twenty, I knew that I was attracted to both genders (after turning twenty, I also found out there's more than two), and didn't see any way out of the traditional Christian view. Peer pressure piled on top of that -- high school students are homophobic enough already, but when you're going to a small private fundamentalist Baptist school that uses textbooks from Pensacola Christian College (where men and women have to use separate sidewalks to "avoid the appearance of evil" (that's not even what that Bible verse means anyway; it's a misunderstanding of a mistranslation that has gone way way too far)) and Bob Jones University (we visited them once. we played a board game with two guys and a girl who were students there, and me and the two guys started saying (not singing, just saying) the lyrics to All-Star and the girl whispered "Stop it! You're gonna get us in trouble!" with genuine fear in her voice (also BJU didn't allow interracial dating until 2000))... so I had to make sure I just kept repressing those thoughts, because they were going to put me on the wrong side of Jesus and the bullies (Jesus seemed to be on the bullies' side a lot, come to think of it). I figured everyone was like me, having the capacity to be tempted with lustful thoughts about men and women, and we had to choose to dwell on the right ones (but wait, that wasn't right, because I'm not supposed to be thinking about either of them) -- as I started talking and actually listening to other people much later on, I finally realized that probably wasn't really the case for most people.

I'm rambling. I guess my point was that I'm a politically moderate (Actually, I don't know where I am politically anymore. Sometimes I'm a libertarian, sometimes I'm a socialist, sometimes I'm an anarchist. I don't want to vote for Obama or Romney, but for just about the opposite of the reasons everyone in my church doesn't want to vote for either of them) bisexual (I guess I could say "practicing" or whatever in the sense that I'm okay with it now, but I'm not sleeping with anyone because I'm still planning on waiting until marriage, and I'm not dating anyone because I'm lame and have no social skills and there's no one around here anyway) Christian now, but I still sympathize with conservatives, and while they're not the ones being oppressed here, I still don't want to force them into anything (partly because that probably wouldn't change their minds and actually be effective anyway). And the lawyer in me maintains that there are legitimate Constitutional issues to figure out here, due to marriage kind of being a joint church-state thing that really shouldn't have been like that in the first place.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying it should be illegal for churches to believe quiltbaggery is sinful. I do think they're wrong on that, and do want them to change, but I don't want to send theological messages with a gun (which, my libertarian and/or anarchist headmates remind me, is ultimately what any government mandate boils down to -- don't do this and you'll pay a fine; don't pay the fine and we'll arrest you; resist arrest and we'll shoot you). By the same token, I don't want doctrine becoming law (whether or not I agree with the doctrine in question -- you shouldn't go to prison for believing in infant baptism -- but, admittedly, especially so when it's a doctrine I strongly disagree with, and which personally affects me -- there's a good chance that the person I end up falling in love with and spending the rest of my life with will be male (on a relative scale, not an absolute one, as currently my absolute chances of finding someone at all are far from a certainty, but enough pretentious lapsing into overly loquacious self-pity as my posts gradually descend into Dr. Bronner-grade madness (DILUTE! DILUTE! OKAY! I AM SAD SOMETIMES!)).)

Did I end with the right number of parentheses there? Did I even end all of my sentences there? I can't tell anymore. I suck at concise writing (I can see now that never doing second drafts of any of my papers in college maybe actually was a bad idea; is this the kind of stuff I expected my professors to read?). I think this post would be better suited to the medium of notecards clothespinned to criss-crossed strings hung across my apartment (I don't actually have an apartment (I live with my parents and if they knew I was bi they would not be happy (that would have worked as a pun if I was gay but oh well I definitely like girls))).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on September 03, 2012, 11:18:02 AM
I'm of the belief that extending marriage to include same-sex couples does not really force conservatives into anything at all.  They will still be able to go on holding the same beliefs and acting in accordance with them, and same-sex couples who value legal protection will be able to act likewise.

I want to digress too!  I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic elementary school and Catholic high school and was confirmed Catholic and Catholic Catholic.  I didn't figure out I was gay until I got to college and there were actual resources available to help me better understand the variation that exists with sexuality.  My mom was pretty staunchly conservative, at least with gay people, and when I came out after my sophomore year she was not pleased.  However, I had specifically taken classes on the subject (and gone to see a counselor) so that I could be well-informed and confidently defend against her anti-gay arguments.  I never tried to put down her faith or claim that religion as a whole is wrong or incorrect.  I would just defend that same-sex attraction and relationships do not have to clash with Christianity, as the specific aspects of Christianity that people use against LGBT people are very weak and lack substantial support.
Eventually she was OK with it.  She died almost two months ago, and one of the last things she told me on the phone before falling ill was how she had listened to an NPR story about a Catholic priest woman who was a lesbian and did not see her religion as being at odds with her sexuality.  She was excited about this story because it confirmed to her that being gay doesn't have to be bad from a Catholic perspective!

I think there will always be people who oppose same-sex relationships.  But I think there are a lot of conservative folks who have the capacity to incorporate marriage equality into their personal beliefs.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 03, 2012, 08:52:39 PM
Sorry to hear about your mom. Good to hear that she did accept you, though.

I really don't know how my parents would react. I know they wouldn't kick me out, thankfully, but I wonder whether they would eventually come around after I explained my interpretation -- I don't think they're really aware that it's possible to accept same-sex relationships without having to throw out the Bible, without even having to throw out inerrantism and plenary verbal inspiration. They know there are Christians (or, they would say, people who call themselves Christians) who accept it, but they probably assume all of those people are of the "Well of course the Bible says that, but we don't need to follow the Bible anymore, because that was a long time ago and stuff" type. It might just blow their mind to know there exist LGBT Christians with internally consistent conservative hermeneutics (not that I'm the best example of a conservative LGBT Christian, being that I'm not a conservative anymore most of the time, but they are out there). I bet there's even a couple of gay young-earthers (not that young earth creation is the best example of an internally consistent hermeneutic, being that it's not).

Now I'm remembering one time, I wanna say about seven years ago, when my mom asked me if I thought it was possible to be gay and Christian, and I said no. I remember regretting my answer shortly afterward, thinking if nothing else I may have been a bit hasty (and really regretting it now that I believe the opposite (well, not the complete opposite -- that would be if I believed that only gay people could be Christians)), but I never mentioned anything about it to her again. The farthest I've gotten so far is bringing up the interpretation that Sodom was destroyed for inhospitality, not homosexuality (and that even if the attempted angel gang-rape were the sin they were destroyed for, it would be no more fair to paint all gay people with that brush than to compare all straight people to David and Bathsheba, and it's unfair to use the word "sodomy" to refer to gay sex (actually, legally it means anything other than PIV sex, which makes even less sense)). She basically accepted my point there, but I didn't press it any farther.

One thing I can't picture, though, is my mom listening to NPR.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on September 03, 2012, 09:35:59 PM
You know what would be hilarious


If Jewish people tried to make eating pork illegal
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on September 03, 2012, 11:09:00 PM
My mom also watched the 700 Club. :S  I also always confuse Pat Robertson with Robert Pattinson.

What if agnostics made certainty illegal?  Wait, how would we be certain that it's illegal or not? ...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 03, 2012, 11:43:17 PM
I do have a really good friend, politically conservative (though she distrusts Republicans about as much as Democrats), Catholic (though not always the most orthodox Catholic), who was totally traditionally against same-sex relationships when I met her (and I was still mostly officially against them at the time, despite not wanting to be), and then her brother came out about two and a half years ago. She was kind of shocked and devastated at the time, using some language that I'm sure she'd regret now (and believe me, she's not normally the type to regret the use of language), but after the two of them talked (a lot), she's accepted him and become his biggest advocate. Really warmed my heart seeing her defend him on the Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day page on Facebook. And she's still the same person she's always been -- loud, passionate, Christian, simultaneously highly traditional and highly nontraditional in a way that somehow makes sense, stubborn, and above all, fiercely loyal. I really wouldn't have expected her to change her mind two years ago, but looking at things now, it makes perfect sense. The fact that she could integrate it into her worldview like that gives me hope.

I also always confuse Pat Robertson with Robert Pattinson.
The difference is that one only pretends to be a hundred-year-old blood-sucker.
What if agnostics made certainty illegal?  Wait, how would we be certain that it's illegal or not? ...
Alternatively, what if absolutists lobbied to make uncertainty illegal, and then it wasn't clear whether the bill would be passed or not?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on September 13, 2012, 04:24:03 PM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shortpacked.com%2Fcomics%2F2005-07-22-a.gif&hash=1e4920cc2d66814d1bda5f11365101ce)

http://www.shortpacked.com/2005/comic/book-1-brings-back-the-80s/09-independent-man/a-79/

Interesting idea, but it won't completely die out due to the fact the heterosexual couples can still have homosexual children due to things like younger siblings being exposed to less sex hormones in the womb than their older siblings. 

---

Has anyone here compared their digit ratios to their sexual orientation (and/or penis length)? 

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viewzone.com%2Fhomohands.jpg&hash=554a0082b2b57fc89208ff917f05e5ea)

http://fingerlengthdigitratio.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/your-finger-length-and-your-sexual-preference/

I am a heterosexual male and my ring finger is longer than my index finger so I fit the trend. 

I have not attempted to measure and relate my penis length. 

http://www.handresearch.com/diagnostics/finger-length-predicts-penis-length-digit-ratio.htm

Note:  If you have the filter on make sure to change the word weenus above to the medical term. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on September 13, 2012, 04:35:51 PM
Weenus isn't the medical term?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on September 13, 2012, 05:47:24 PM
Heh, no.  Wenus is the skin under the elbow, but WENIS stands for Weekly Estimated Net Income Statistics according to the TV Show Friends.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on September 13, 2012, 05:48:52 PM
Quote
Note:  If you have the filter on make sure to change the word weenus above to the medical term. 
I [darn] near lol'd.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on September 13, 2012, 06:35:12 PM
What about ****** depth?  Has that been studied? 

While I think the weenus term is funny I am very much in favor of using correct terminology when referring to sexual anatomy.  I cringe when my wife uses cute terms for what I'd prefer be called the correct anatomy term when teaching my 6 year-old something.  It's not like I'm going to teach her that babies come out of a **** when birth canal or ****** are much more appropriate and correct than "front butt" or "wee wee place." 

Edit:  Anyone else check their digit ratio? 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on September 13, 2012, 07:29:00 PM
My index fingers sit higher than my ring fingers, but the lengths change depending on how they're measured each time.  Since I'm gay, let's just say the index fingers are longer.

I've heard of the Older Brother Effect, where each time a mother carries a male fetus her body becomes more adept at feminizing the fetus (because it is perceived by the female body to be "alien"), but I didn't think there were simply less sex hormones involved.  I am not a scientist, of course.  Apparently the Older Brother Effect only applies to right-handed sons.

I have three older brothers.  Two of them are left-handed, so am I.

???
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on September 13, 2012, 07:33:59 PM
I didn't know of the right vs. left handed correlation.  I need to do more research on that aspect.  Also, the less sex hormones concept in my previous post was my simple over generalization based on my limited knowledge of the subject. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on September 14, 2012, 12:12:25 AM
I basically paraphrased from this cartoon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Xs_dNkmW0
There was another video about the handedness relation to the older brother effect, but I can't seem to find it.  It was a news report on 60 Minutes, I think...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Ninjap00 on September 14, 2012, 07:34:21 PM
Heterosexual male here and my ring finger's longer than my index finger, so I fit the trend.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on September 14, 2012, 08:52:45 PM
On my right hand, my ring finger is longer, but on my left hand, they're pretty much the same. I guess that's kinda fitting?

Measuring from the base of the fingers (the crease where they meet the palm), on the inside, at the center of the joint:

Right Index: 7.2cm
Right Ring: 7.8cm

Left Index: 7.4cm
Left Ring: 7.5cm

All my other fingers are the same length on both hands.

(I'm also right-handed and the oldest brother.)

"front butt"
I am still (http://youtu.be/c7Of9ojlmMY?t=1m40s) amazed that this is a thing that people actually say.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: A on September 18, 2012, 11:55:12 PM
...



you guys are gaaaaaaaaay




































and i'm completely alright with that
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on September 22, 2012, 03:05:25 AM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchainsawsuit.com%2Fcomics%2F20120920.png&hash=345d6be278e34e5af1acd2aee03545d9)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 17, 2012, 04:00:37 PM
I don't care, really, just don't rape me, boy or girl.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Ym9iYnlzcTEzMzc equalsign on October 17, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
And this year's WTD award goes to...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 17, 2012, 04:33:55 PM
I wonder if the same winner will also receive the B& award.

EDIT: While we are in the midst of this time warp, do we think it's posible that jon has been reincarnated?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 17, 2012, 05:23:32 PM
And this year's WTD award goes to...
Aw, shucks
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 17, 2012, 08:44:32 PM
EDIT: While we are in the midst of this time warp, do we think it's posible that jon has been reincarnated?

Yay!  As whom?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 17, 2012, 08:47:44 PM
Maybe me, but I can assure you, this is my first account.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 17, 2012, 08:59:58 PM
Returning to the topic at hand, I at least agree with the notion that consent is more important than the gender with whom one is becoming romantically involved.  That's why I never understood the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between a human and an animal: how would animals give legal consent?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 17, 2012, 09:03:51 PM
More importantly, why would you think that would make people think inbreeding was okay. Heck, some people don't care about it now!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Ym9iYnlzcTEzMzc equalsign on October 17, 2012, 09:17:57 PM
More importantly, why would you think that would make people think inbreeding was okay. Heck, some people don't care about it now!
Where the heck did that come from? (and why the extra tags?)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 17, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Where the heck did that come from? (and why the extra tags?)
It just came to me, and by tags you mean italicized words, correct?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 17, 2012, 09:30:55 PM
That's what I said when someone asked me how I knew I found men attractive.  Minus the part about tags.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 04:49:36 AM
Returning to the topic at hand, I at least agree with the notion that consent is more important than the gender with whom one is becoming romantically involved.  That's why I never understood the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between a human and an animal: how would animals give legal consent?

First of all, Markio, good to see you again!

Second, this argument is found precisely in the idea latent within the nature of same-sex mariage: namely, that attraction is sufficient grounds to establish a legal mariage contract. The principle argument is "I was born this way," or "It is not fair that I can't get married to the person whom I love." The argument is never that a two consenting adults cannot enter into this contract (for the government limits all sorts of private contracts on many grounds). The problem is not so much about consent arguments; it spills back upon the idea of attraction, and thus the slippery slope argument about what else would have to be legalized. In a word, the argument of consent is subordinated to its "why," which is the question of attraction.

Of course, this is not the best argument against same-sex unions, but that is how the claim can be made that same-sex unions could devolve into a justification for all sorts of strange "marriages."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 18, 2012, 11:37:03 AM
I've been avoiding this topic for a while, but here goes. I voted for "I have mixed views."

Without going into my personal views on homosexuality, I think the whole controversy boils down to "freedom of religion," so to speak. Whether one wants to accept or disapprove of gay marriage is, ultimately, up to that individual's personal beliefs. People have the right to believe whatever they want.

If someone views gay marriage as the most repulsive, unholiest of sins, they have the right to believe that. If someone views it as the most beautiful, natural occurrence in the world, they have the right to believe that. Same for any views in between.
Likewise, if someone believes a "marriage" is invalid, they have the right to believe that. And if someone believes a marriage is indeed valid, they have the right to believe that, as well.

No one should force their views upon the other. That's freedom of religion.

If the government legalizes gay marriage, it effectively forces people to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, whether or not they believe or agree with it. Likewise, if the government bans gay marriage, it forces people to accept gay marriage as invalid, again, whether or not they agree with it. By the government controlling marriage—essentially, a religious/personal concept—it takes away the freedom of religion.

People are always emphasizing "separation of church and state," yet the concept of marriage is inherently intertwined in both. Therein lies the problem. Marriage—the religious, personal concept—should, ideally, be completely separated from the legal concept—civil unions. Don't just call them different names, make them two different concepts.

A couple could get married without being legally united; they could be united without getting married; they could do both; they could do neither. Whatever. But the difference is that people would not be forced to accept the validity or (invalidity) of the marriage, whereas, as far as respecting/honoring legal rights, everyone must accept the civil union.

Regardless, everyone should treat others with respect, dignity, and compassion.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 12:08:49 PM
Sapph, good post.

Here's a question for you, though. What if we removed religion from the equation. It is not as if the question is only one of religious freedom (although that is certainly a component). What if somebody were able to defend heterosexual marriage in a completely separate way, divorced from any one particular religious view. A defense of heterogeneous can be made on secular argumentative grounds. And so, while I agree that the question of religious freedom is intertwined with this issue, I'm not sure that it is the lens through which we should understand the whole issue.  I think the argument needs to be moved onto terms that all people can accept.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on October 18, 2012, 12:26:00 PM
(This is my rebuttal to Sapph's post, which was too slow to beat Koopaslaya's... buttal?) I'll admit that to say this is a crutch, but the same thing can be said about the government forcing white people to accept black people as equals. Is that fair? Absolutely. If it's not hurting anybody why should something be illegal? This question goes for anything ever. People who don't like it can complain all they want, that's legal.

Another problem is that it's debatable whether marriage is a religious thing in the first place. Atheists can get married and no one complains. Marriage predates recorded history so no one can say for sure what it started for.

And even if "gay civil unions" were legalized and "gay marriage" were not, nobody is gonna call a specific instance a civil union, that's just absurd. "Yeah, that's my civil union buddy, we have a civil union and everything."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 18, 2012, 12:36:32 PM
At the moment, I don't have time to fully respond, but...

In the context of my post, when I speak of "religion," I mean it in the sense of one's personal convictions, opinions, and/or outlook, whether those views have ties to an actual religion or not.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 18, 2012, 12:38:29 PM
I think religion shouldn't be involved with marriage, because then it's not up to the person to marry.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 18, 2012, 02:40:25 PM
If the government legalizes gay marriage, it effectively forces people to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, whether or not they believe or agree with it. Likewise, if the government bans gay marriage, it forces people to accept gay marriage as invalid, again, whether or not they agree with it. By the government controlling marriage—essentially, a religious/personal concept—it takes away the freedom of religion.

My issue with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that legal marriage is equivalent to the Sacrament of Matrimony.  If the government extends legal marriage rights to same-sex couples, then I do not see how the sacrament of marriage is affected.  My understanding is that marriage as a religious/personal concept is not controlled by the government: the government issues marriage licenses to allow couples access to 1,049 federal rights, none of which include the consummation of their vows or a blessing from their God(s).  If same-sex couples were allowed receive legal marriage licenses, wouldn't those who disagree with the morality of same-sex relationships still be able to practice their religion and live their lives in accordance to their own beliefs?

People are always emphasizing "separation of church and state," yet the concept of marriage is inherently intertwined in both. Therein lies the problem. Marriage—the religious, personal concept—should, ideally, be completely separated from the legal concept—civil unions. Don't just call them different names, make them two different concepts.

Why is it necessary to give legal marriage a different name?  So far, actual civil unions do not afford a couple all the same federal benefits as a legal marriage does.  And current marriages recognized by the State do not require that either party affiliates with any organized religion (let alone the same religion).  Clearly there is already a distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage.  Insisting that legal marriage change its name before including same-sex couples does not seem fair.  It suggests that same-sex couples are incapable of the same commitment and legal integrity that is expected of opposite-sex couples.

I would also like to point out that there are religions that affirm/value same-sex relationships!  Including many denominations of Christianity.  This video is the most comprehensive on the theological debate regarding the validity of homosexuality within the context of the Bible.  It's long, but covers all the bases:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 03:35:24 PM
Markio's post is the exact reason why I posted what I did. I am a religious man, yes. My personal opposition to same-sex marriages or even same-sex unions is not because of (but, incidentally in keeping with) my Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 04:03:28 PM
My opinion on the subject has been repeated ad infinitum, as has my opinion on religion (particularly the Abrahamic faiths). So yeah. I see no good justification for not allowing gays to wed.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 18, 2012, 04:13:40 PM
At the moment, I don't have time to fully respond, but...

In the context of my post, when I speak of "religion," I mean it in the sense of one's personal convictions, opinions, and/or outlook, whether those views have ties to an actual religion or not.
That's religion
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 04:20:25 PM
How do one's "opinions and convictions" have anything to do with religion unless they're actually formed from religious doctrines?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 18, 2012, 04:29:25 PM
While I'm not necessarily comfortable with the apparent intertwining of church and state on marriage, I think we actually do a pretty good job of keeping the two marriages separate already. For example, conservative Christians typically hold that divorcing someone and marrying someone else is immoral, unless the divorce was for a valid Biblical reason. There's nothing stopping a divorced person from getting a marriage license from the government, but some churches will choose not to recognize it, and may choose not to allow that person into their congregation. People (and churches) right now are perfectly free to say "Yeah, but that's not a real marriage" to remarried divorcees, and in the future they ought to be just as free to deny the "realness" of same-sex marriages, without impacting the legal benefits of civil marriage.

My dad is divorced from his first wife, and as far as I know, it wasn't for a Biblically valid reason in the eyes of most conservative Christians. Further, I was born out of wedlock, and my mother did not marry my biological father (in violation of Leviticus). If the conservative doctrinal definition of marriage were legally binding in its entirety (which some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage) would like to see happen), then their marriage would be invalid, and our family wouldn't have qualified for all the legal benefits and tax breaks that marriage affords, and who knows where we'd be now. If my parents can be legally married despite not fitting every Christian's definition of marriage, same-sex couples ought to be too.

As for Christian arguments supporting same-sex relations, I prefer Justin Lee (http://gaychristian.net/justins_view.php)'s arguments. Matthew Vines's video is good too, but I think he does make a few arguments that are a bit specious. Ben Adam (http://messesofben.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-the-bible-does-not-forbid-homosexuality/) has a somewhat more liberal treatment that focuses more indepth on the historical background of Rome, and A Letter To Louise (http://www.godmademegay.com) makes some interesting points that I haven't seen much elsewhere.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 18, 2012, 04:35:00 PM
How do one's "opinions and convictions" have anything to do with religion unless they're actually formed from religious doctrines?
Religion is someone's opinions and morals, so yeah, and I mean creating religion, not based off a current one.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 04:51:22 PM
No, that's one's philosophy. Religion concerns beliefs pertaining to spirituality and/or transcendence and has no bearing on your opinions or morals unless you let it.

EDIT: Your edited post makes less sense than your last one.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 18, 2012, 04:58:49 PM
Yeah, you're right
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 05:18:04 PM
I just noticed that the question in the poll is flawed. Asking whether you "accept" a homosexual (whatever that means) is a essentially different question than whether it is permissible for them to wed. In responding to the poll, one must draw a distinction between an understanding, appreciation, and genuine love for homosexual persons as opposed to permission for them to wed.

I have in mind that it might be possible to say that "I accept them..." and to say that allowing them to wed is "flat out wrong."

Just saying that the categories available to us in this topic are not quite fair.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 05:19:41 PM
one must draw a distinction between an understanding, appreciation, and genuine love for homosexual persons as opposed to permission for them to wed.

I think allowing them to wed goes along with the whole "understanding, appreciation, and genuine love" thing.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 05:29:23 PM
That is not true.

Suppose my son were a serial arsonist. He has burned down many buildings. He is by all counts a wicked individual. He deserves to be in prison. Still, as his father, I might love in in virtue of his being my son. I still might love him as my son, despite my hatred of his egregious deeds.

This is not to draw an equivocation between homosexual acts and arson, but it is to demonstrate that one's acts, while related to his personhood, are not the determinate factor of it. Thus, I might still love somebody despite his actions.

For an example a little closer to home, it is certainly possible that you still love very much somebody who hurt you in a very profound and specific way. In a way that you can name. This action has not stopped you from being able to love that person.

Thus, actions are related to persons, but actions are not persons.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 05:36:59 PM
That's a very convoluted way of saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin." To which I say that sincerely loving someone means allowing them to participate in acts that contribute to their own happiness and aren't detrimental to anyone else, regardless if it's a sin (whatever that is) in some religious book. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 05:44:14 PM
You brought religion into this, not I. Notice that I have not yet made one appeal to any "religious book." I've used only reason in my arguments.

Also, is it not possible, in your description of happiness, that somebody's "happiness" could be completely contingent upon somebody else's misery? What is the only thing that makes me happy is schadenfreude? Who are you to tell me that my personal happiness can't be at the expense of others? If all happiness is relative, as you are suggesting, what does it matter that my happiness interferes with yours?

Sincerely loving somebody means willing his or her good, and not giving him or her license to do anything at all. If your eight-year-old were to reach for a pan on the stove, wouldn't you try to stop him? What if my happiness were at nobody's expense, but it involved me breeding rabbits in the basement and torturing them? That doesn't hurt anybody who can be happy in any human sense.

Again this is not to put homosexual actions on par with any of these things, this is only to say that you need a more robust account of happiness before you can hurl that argument around.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 18, 2012, 06:07:01 PM
I'm still waiting for your reason-based arguments against same-sex marriage.  You say you don't mean to put gay sexual activity on par with your examples of detrimental behavior, but then I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in the first place.  Do you think that same-sex relationships are not capable of secular stability, happiness, or substance?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 06:20:35 PM
I will make the argument once I have a clear amount of time to make it articulate and easy to follow.

Before I make any arguments whatsoever, I will say this. These arguments are to be made in good cheer and do not express my personal judgement of any person, here or otherwise. I should also like to make it known that I have close friends who are homosexual persons and I do not "hate them" in any way. While my little argument won't come for possibly a few days, I would just like to acknowledge that in posting in this topic, it has never been my intention to hurt anyone or to start a flame war. I only wish to express clearly my reasoning for holding to what I do.

Preview of coming attractions:

In response to Markio, I will say this. Yes, I believe that homosexual acts are not perfective of the human person. I do not believe that they are good. In using the examples that I use, I mean it only in service of establishing first principles: That there is a good or bad, that happiness is not relative, that we can draw a distinction between people and actions. Sometimes harsh examples bring subtle distinctions into heavy relief.

Also, be careful in your terms. A same-sex relationship might not be sexual, and in this case, it can be "stable, happy, and substantive." If by same-sex relationship, you mean a same-sex relationship in imitation of a heterosexual relationship and with an element of sexual stimulation, then your claim is somewhat correct, but this would, of course, demand an exploration of the terms "stable," "happy," and "substantive," for which I have not the time.

Hope this helps :)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 18, 2012, 08:20:55 PM
I admit I feel strongly about this subject because I am gay, but I also do not intend to react with hostility to dissenting opinions regarding homosexuality and marriage equality.  I wouldn't want this topic to crumble into a flame war because I think these discussions are really important to have, however uncomfortable they may be.

I also wanted to clarify that by "same-sex relationship" I am referring to the healthiest manifestation of a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, where love is unconditional, each individual is committed to the other, and sexual activity is merely one facet of the entire relationship...  except instead of one man and one woman there are two men or two women.  I hold the belief that two people of the same gender and/or biological sex are capable of having as healthy and moral a relationship as two people of differing genders/sexes.  I don't consider anything other than the gender of the parties involved to differ when comparing same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships (aside from potential sex positions, but I think that's a trivial difference of little consequence).  My opinions will usually extend from this belief.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 08:49:28 PM
You brought religion into this, not I. Notice that I have not yet made one appeal to any "religious book." I've used only reason in my arguments.

What reason? You've only said that you can love someone without allowing them to do what they want, which, while true in some cases, seems really contradictory and baseless when applied to gay marriage. "Yo man, I love you and all, but I hate that you love the color red. I'm going to do everything in my power to stop you from enjoying it even though it makes you happy and doesn't personally hurt me. But I still love you, man!" I assumed you were making an appeal to sin because the argument just sounds so baseless without it. 

Also, is it not possible, in your description of happiness, that somebody's "happiness" could be completely contingent upon somebody else's misery? Who are you to tell me that my personal happiness can't be at the expense of others?

...I said "not detrimental to anyone else." Wow. I never said that one's happiness can't be contingent upon someone else's pain, just that if you're not harming anyone and you're happy, you should be allowed to do it.

What if my happiness were at nobody's expense, but it involved me breeding rabbits in the basement and torturing them?

>at nobody's expense
>torturing rabbits

Are...are you just trolling now?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 08:51:11 PM
In response to Markio:

I think I now have a much clearer understanding of where you are coming from, and I will attempt to tailor my arguments to suit your vantage point. You must forgive me for holding off on a systematic response; I'm working on two master's degrees simultaneously right now and time to free write is sparse.

In any event, I appreciate your candidness and honesty. Having an open and honest  genuine discussion about these issues can only broaden our understanding of each other's opinions, even if in the end we continue to disagree. That's the beauty of being able to divorce actions for the worth of a person. Despite our seemingly distant viewpoints, in the end we can continue to both respect one another as members of the human family. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 18, 2012, 08:56:01 PM
What reason? You've only said that you can love someone without allowing them to do what they want, which, while true in some cases, seems really contradictory and baseless when applied to gay marriage. "Yo man, I love you and all, but I hate that you love the color red. I'm going to do everything in my power to stop you from enjoying it even though it makes you happy and doesn't personally hurt me. But I still love you, man!" I assumed you were making an appeal to sin because the argument just sounds so baseless without it. 

...I said "not detrimental to anyone else." Wow. I never said that one's happiness can't be contingent upon someone else's pain, just that if you're not harming anyone and you're happy, you should be allowed to do it.

>at nobody's expense
>torturing rabbits

Are...are you just trolling now?

1. You apparently missed the analogy, because your counterexample twists my words. Try to stick with examples of moral significance and not with contrived notions.

2. The rabbit example is harsh, yes. Remember what I said about harsh examples bringing subtle distinctions into broad relief. (Plus, who said rabbits are a "somebody" what if I think they are just a "something"? What if that is part of my happiness?

3. I don't think I'm trolling because I am being polite and am offering arguments that can be logically followed by anyone (it remains to be seen if they are sound, but it remains that they are at least valid reasoning). You implicitly agree to this because you respond to my arguments.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 09:07:08 PM
You apparently missed the analogy, because your counterexample twists my words. Try to stick with examples of moral significance and not with contrived notions.

Except that a person enjoying the color red-the "contrived" notion-and a homosexual wanting to marry someone they love-the "morally significant" case-are hardly that much different, insofar as there's no good reason to take a hard stance against them like one should save a child from touching a hot pan. I also get that it's possible to love someone while not letting them do something, just not in the instances I provided. In the case of the arsonist, you love him because he's your son, yet hate his actions because they harm others (and possibly himself). Fine. Perfectly justified. But what's so harmful about letting a gay person get married? Furthermore, how can you even claim to genuinely love them if you disapprove of something so harmless? The lack of an apparent base suggests that you don't love them as much as you say. Unless of course you believe being gay is harmful or that rightness (or love) has nothing to do with harm. 

Yes, I believe that homosexual acts are not perfective of the human person. I do not believe that they are good.

Ah. I see. Any argument from this point is inevitably going to involve religion and/or metaethics. Fun.

(Plus, who said rabbits are a "somebody" what if I think they are just a "something"? What if that is part of my happiness?

It doesn't matter if you do think it but whether you're right in thinking so. Seeing as how they're still suffering, it's really of little interest that you're getting a kick out of it.

I don't think I'm trolling because I am being polite and am offering arguments that can be reasonably followed by anyone with reason.

Of course I don't actually think you're trolling, but I am equating your argument about the rabits to trolling as a sarcastic jab. I apologize for my rudeness, but you can't blame me for finding your rabbit argument strange.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 18, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Markio, there's no video appearing for me.

...I said "not detrimental to anyone else."
Whether or not it's "detrimental"—to either one's self and/or to others—is one aspect of the entire debate. But just because you don't believe it's detrimental doesn't mean others don't view it as such. And vice versa. (I used too many negatives and am now confusing myself. XD) And it doesn't mean either view is necessarily right or wrong. I'm not going to get into that argument, though.

Moving on...
Since this is such a controversial topic, the idea of removing marriage from the government is the best solution I can think of to appease the most people. Nothing will ever please EVERYONE, but this solution seems to be the best compromise and middle-of-the-road approach.

Maybe we just need new words for both personal/religious marriage (the emotional and/or spiritual promise/union between two people) and legal unions to make the disassociation between the two fair; then neither will be called "marriage." Like "Life Partners" and "Legal Lovers" or something. I dunno. XD
But change the vocabulary for the two concepts to make it CLEAR they mean something different from each other. I think that's what's hanging a lot of people up; they end up associating the two as the same. When they're not. Or shouldn't be.

In response to the "religious" argument and my previous post: To clarify, I don't like the notion of "religion"—I prefer to think of it as one's personal beliefs rather than an organized dogma with rituals and whatnot. If those beliefs are shared among a lot of people, and they want to use them to form a religion (in the traditional sense), more power to them, but the term "religion" seems restrictive and, for many, holds negative connotations.

Another problem is that it's debatable whether marriage is a religious thing in the first place. Atheists can get married and no one complains.
While atheism isn't a "religion," it most certainly is a personal belief and outlook. Many people might CALL it a religion, though, because of lack of a better term. While Christianity is a religion in the traditional sense, certainly, it doesn't have to be. One can believe, follow, and live by the teachings of Jesus (and/or the apostles) without necessarily following the customs and rituals typically associated with religion of Christianity. But we're delving into a different topic, so...

What I'm trying to say is, approval or disapproval of homosexuality doesn't have to be connected to a religion. But it IS a personal belief/opinion/outlook. When I referenced "freedom of religion," what I actually mean is "freedom to believe whatever you want." I said "religion" because that's the term used in the Constitution, but I interpret that to actually mean "personal beliefs," at least in its intent.

It seems like what we're debating, at this point, is semantics.

This topic has spurred an interesting discussion. Koopaslaya, I agree with most, if not all, of what you've had to say in your recent posts, including your responses to Markio, and I think you expressed your views very eloquently and tactfully. CrossEyed, I'm in the process of reading those links you posted; so far they are interesting. I might have more to say later. PaperLuigi, let's work on keeping this discussion a little less...heated, I suppose.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 18, 2012, 09:58:17 PM
If I sound heated, it's only because I feel so passionately about the issue AND I'm legitimately having fun.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on October 18, 2012, 10:27:06 PM
Why is gayness immoral

I'm curious, Koopaslaya, if it's not "because Satans," then what could it be? I mean I could even compare it to harmless things that, depending on whether you do it or not, give you a feeling of "Hee hee, I got away with something bad!" or "I'm not doing that, it's bad." Taking a second slice of pizza at a party, not pointing it out when the cashier gives you more change than you were supposed to get, jaywalking, hiding the last can of coke at the back of the fridge... What is inherently bad, even if harmless, about wedlock between two humans with boobs/dongs? What about it is supposed to pop the little conscience angel and devil onto the shoulders? What would the angel be saying?

I know sexual deviance is often referred to as a "guilty pleasure" but that doesn't literally mean you're guilty of something
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 18, 2012, 11:20:55 PM
Markio, there's no video appearing for me.

Here's a direct hyperlink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY)  If it still isn't working, then searching for "Matthew Vines" on Youtube ought to yield the right results.

I'm really curious to hear how homosexuality is understood as detrimental.  I would rather speak directly about those concerns than construct odd analogies about the issue.  Patience is a virtue, I guess...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 19, 2012, 12:28:20 AM
Coming from a Christian perspective, the aspect that most convinced me that same-sex relations aren't inherently immoral is the existence of intersex people. I remember specifically thinking about it during the controversy in the fall of '09 over whether Caster Semenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya) was female enough to technically count as a female runner (This New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html?em&_r=0) is a good intro to the whole thing). I started wondering, if there's not really clear black-and-white boundaries between the sexes (let alone the genders), then where do we draw the line? If she's not female enough for whatever athletic federation's arbitrary standards, then would it technically be gay if she married a man? It's not like the Bible ever gives a specific scientific way to quantify what sex a person is. So is she just not supposed to get married then? But from a Christian perspective, that doesn't make sense. Paul liked celibacy a whole lot, but he never believed in forcing it on anyone (1 Corinthians 7) -- he even says in 1 Timothy 4 that that's the kind of thing that demons teach. If intersex people want to be celibate, more power to them, but it's entirely their choice, just as much as it is anyone else's.

The way I see it, we can either stay consistent to the clear teaching that we should not forbid marriage nor force celibacy on people against their will, or we can be against same-sex relations (based on significantly less clear passages), but not both. (Note that, at this point in the argument, I'm not applying the "forbidding marriage" thing to being against same-sex marriage. For argument's sake, I'm accepting the common rejoinder that if gay people want to get married, they have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person does (even if that won't keep them from "burning" as per 1 Corinthians 7:9). However, intersex people have no options whatsoever under the traditional view of sexuality -- they can't marry someone of "the opposite sex" because they don't have an opposite (unless one wants to argue that, say, a male-bodied person with XX chromosomes should find a female-bodied person with XY chromosomes to marry... complementarians should have fun figuring out that situation).)

I don't see a way to maintain the traditional view (especially at a governmental level) without wronging others (admittedly, that "others" may well include me someday, as I am bi, but I don't think that makes me any more biased than a straight person who's opposed to same-sex marriage).

I'm interested to hear a secular argument for the traditional view, though (I'm also interested in hearing Christian arguments, provided they deal with the topics of modern ideas of gender and disputes over the translation of the Greek and Hebrew words at hand, rather than taking both for granted. And I suppose I'd also like to hear arguments from other religions too -- I wouldn't be equipped to respond to them, but I'd be interested to hear what they are.).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 19, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
While I haven't finished reading everything you linked yet, CrossEyed, I must say, your link to Justin Lee's arguments (http://gaychristian.net/justins_view.php) has resulted in me re-examining my own perspective on the matter. Kudos!

I'm currently reading Ron's opposing argument (http://gaychristian.net/rons_view.php).

EDIT: Oh yeah, Markio, I think my FlashPlayer plugin is acting up or something, because I currently can't get any YouTube videos to work for me. Might have to "reboot" my browser.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 19, 2012, 12:05:51 PM
Coming from a Christian perspective, the aspect that most convinced me that same-sex relations aren't inherently immoral is the existence of intersex people. I remember specifically thinking about it during the controversy in the fall of '09 over whether Caster Semenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya) was female enough to technically count as a female runner (This New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/sports/22runner.html?em&_r=0) is a good intro to the whole thing). I started wondering, if there's not really clear black-and-white boundaries between the sexes (let alone the genders), then where do we draw the line? If she's not female enough for whatever athletic federation's arbitrary standards, then would it technically be gay if she married a man? It's not like the Bible ever gives a specific scientific way to quantify what sex a person is. So is she just not supposed to get married then? But from a Christian perspective, that doesn't make sense. Paul liked celibacy a whole lot, but he never believed in forcing it on anyone (1 Corinthians 7) -- he even says in 1 Timothy 4 that that's the kind of thing that demons teach. If intersex people want to be celibate, more power to them, but it's entirely their choice, just as much as it is anyone else's.

The way I see it, we can either stay consistent to the clear teaching that we should not forbid marriage nor force celibacy on people against their will, or we can be against same-sex relations (based on significantly less clear passages), but not both. (Note that, at this point in the argument, I'm not applying the "forbidding marriage" thing to being against same-sex marriage. For argument's sake, I'm accepting the common rejoinder that if gay people want to get married, they have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person does (even if that won't keep them from "burning" as per 1 Corinthians 7:9). However, intersex people have no options whatsoever under the traditional view of sexuality -- they can't marry someone of "the opposite sex" because they don't have an opposite (unless one wants to argue that, say, a male-bodied person with XX chromosomes should find a female-bodied person with XY chromosomes to marry... complementarians should have fun figuring out that situation).)

I don't see a way to maintain the traditional view (especially at a governmental level) without wronging others (admittedly, that "others" may well include me someday, as I am bi, but I don't think that makes me any more biased than a straight person who's opposed to same-sex marriage).

I'm interested to hear a secular argument for the traditional view, though (I'm also interested in hearing Christian arguments, provided they deal with the topics of modern ideas of gender and disputes over the translation of the Greek and Hebrew words at hand, rather than taking both for granted. And I suppose I'd also like to hear arguments from other religions too -- I wouldn't be equipped to respond to them, but I'd be interested to hear what they are.).
Even somehow dismissing certain passages in both Old and New Testaments on the grounds of shaky-at-best theology and wishful thinking (which there isn't really room to do anyway (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wjA5mUMGd8ov8opibDrfZgqTPGUBbbVnSe7nq3dcYbA/edit)), what do you do with the beginning of Matthew 19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:1-12&version=ESV)?

You're citing scriptures that deal with forbidding marriage as demonic.  But first of all, and as is unfortunately rarely brought up in the debate, "marriage" does not extend to people who cannot or will not enter into a heterosexual union.  It's about the definition and has nothing to do with withholding rights.  Again, see Matthew 19.  The "God created Adam and Eve" argument holds more water than its detractors think if one is even going to pretend to believe that Jesus is Lord, because that's exactly what He uses to make his point.

As far as imposing celibacy goes, your argument seems to be that "restrictions are unlawful because it's not Christian to impose them."  But restraint is a undeniably a huge purpose of God's law (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:8-11&version=ESV).  You say it's a matter of not wronging others, but you seem to be implicitly equating "wronging" with "offending" or "restricting" and ignoring Biblical standards of right and wrong.  There's a huge difference between forbidding people from enjoying what God promotes and encourages, as the Pharisees - and evidently the false teachers Timothy dealt with - did; and not allowing people to sin.  Being consistent with not forbidding marriage and acknowledging that "marriage" means a certain thing (while consequently not meaning certain other things) are not mutually exclusive.

It may be the choice of someone to be celibate, but by the same logic, it's the choice of someone to do anything he wants, from eating lasagna to committing murder.  Just because it's your choice does not make it the right choice (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:12-20&version=ESV).

Apologies if the structure of this post is a little scattered.  Kinda chopped it up over and over to make sure things fit, but I may have overlooked something.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 19, 2012, 12:38:41 PM
**This is a post designed for a mature audience. It uses precise terms and does not shy away from scholarly discussion of human biology and anatomy. **

I think that this is the post everyone has been waiting for. This is meant to be an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage on purely secular grounds. I am not appealing to God, the Bible, the Q'ran, the Pope, or anything that could be confused for the holy.

Before I begin, I think I have to start with some caveats.Keep these things in mind as you read my post, for they will drive the entirety of the argument. First of all, recognize that I am coming from the perspective of the principle of non-contradiction. Same-sex marriage is either possible or it isn't. Moreover, same-sex marriage is either morally repugnant or it is not, regardless of how many people think it's okay or it isn't. And so, in order to refute me, don't try to use arguments of moral relativity, unless you want to back the argument up to first principles (in which case the argument will no longer be about same-sex marriage but will be about something with much higher stakes).

Next, I should like to frame my argument. I am not talking about the moral imperfection of same-sex acts. That is a related to this argument, but my argument stands without making such claims explicit. In other words, exposing the moral repugnancy of same-sex marriage is not the thrust of my argument, and if you think it so, you are missing a major element of my post, which is more about the government's interest in legalizing and offering marriage benefits to same-sex couples (I know the objection here, which is “if its not immoral, what's wrong with it?” I have two responses. 1. Driving on the right side of the road is not immoral per se but it is not good for society because of the structure of the way things are. 2. I do think they are immoral and I think my argument is weakened if that is not properly in place). Nevertheless, I think what I'm trying to say can be said without having to systematically explain the moral imperfection of same-sex acts. Next, I need to establish what I mean by love: to will the good of another. Love cannot merely be reduced to sentiment or feeling, it needs to be a free choice of the will to work toward another's perfection, perhaps even at the expense of one's own time or own interests. Love so described is by its very nature fruitful. What good is a friendship that does not bear the joys of virtue, mutual enjoyment, and quality time? What good is the love that one coworker shares for another if that work relationship does not bring forth some product? Notice that in in the fruitfulness of each relationship, I am speaking of a fruitfulness proper to its essence: friendship begets quality time, not apples. Work-relationships beget products, not baby salamanders. Musical relationships beget good music, not rocket ships. This will be the thrust of my argument, that a sexual relationship has a fruitfulness proper to its order.

Having established first principles, and having framed the argument, allow me to present a very tentative thesis which will need to be fleshed out in the ensuing argumentation. My thesis is: same-sex marriages ought not be given by the government the same rewards and benefits as a heterosexual marriage precisely because the integral component of childbearing can never be present. While this argument says nothing about whether two people may or may not, of their own choosing, engage in same-sex genital stimulation, it does maintain that because of the nature of a same-sex couple, the government has no interest and is actually harmed in granting the same benefits to same-sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples.

Let us begin with a thought experiment. Suppose I lived in a community with all males. I, a male, might have any number of friends and I might enter into a professional relationship with that person. The government of that community would have interest, for the common good, to regulate my trade affairs with these other gentlemen. Now, suppose, one of these other men and I were to strike up a friendship – not a professional relationship. What interest would the government have in regulating our discussions, the games we play together, or the activities that we do? None, we are acting as private agents with respect to the whole. Our friendship might be a good for the society (as we might model virtuous living and the like) but we do not receive any special benefit for this. Now, suppose, this friend of mine begins giving me very pleasurable foot rubs. This is done without compensation. Does the government have, as its prerogative, to regulate this? No, this remains proper to our friendship, and it is not related in any way to the commerce of the community. In other words, that we give each other foot rubs, which might indeed feel very good, is not sufficient grounds for the government of this community to recognize our friendship as anything more than the fraternization of two private citizens. We might even choose to live together, but the government is not going to reward one of its citizens for finding a very particular or special friend.

Now, let us suppose that one day, I am walking about the country and I come across a new, yes analogous, community of individuals who are like me, but have very different parts. One of these individuals, let us call her a woman, and I strike up a friendship. Again, neither community seems to have much interest that we might enjoy bowling together. Now, however, let us suppose that she and I engage in a copulative act. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that she and I have no idea that this act is conjugal. Soon, she begins to elicit signs that this act has changed her. Her natural rhythms and such are interrupted and changed precisely because of the sort of act in which we engaged. Nine months later, a child appears. Well, not the society has another mouth to feed. Is it now time for the government to step in? Yes. This new couple is the sort of couple that would be able to do something of a completely different order if everything is working (which it is). They can produce a child. The government's interest in this sort of relationship is significant because this relationship ensures the future of the society and provides for the futures upbringing. This is precisely why the government should reward heterosexual married couples.

Now allow me to shift my focus. I am going to be making another argument. Consider your lungs. They are complete with respect to your own body. They execute their function as lungs in a working body complete unto itself. The same is true of the heart, skin, liver, and kidneys. These organs complete their function with respect to the body to which they belong. Both the male and female reproductive organs make little sense on their own. A penis or vagina is incomplete in its functionality with respect to the body to which it belongs. They only do that which they do in terms of one another. To say that stimulation alone is the telos of these organs is a lot like saying the function of the lungs is to hold air, but not to process it. That only identifies a contingent element of the organ's functionality. Thus, the argument can be made that what is going on in same sex genital activity is, at best, mutual masturbation. It is quite analogous to the foot rubs in the above example. It may well feel good to the individuals engaged in it, but it does not provide for the good of the society in the manner that a heterosexual marriage does. Thus, the government should have no more of an interest in making homosexual partners on par with heterosexual marriages (as if it could change or lessen the significance of the sort of relationship which would end in child-rearing) than it does in having an interest in recognizing me and my best friend as partners worthy of some governmental benefits.

Here is another argument. It is often dismissed as a “slippery slope fallacy,” but it could more accurately be called a argument of trajectory. It is the sort of reasoning the Supreme Court uses when trying to establish a ruling. It asks: If we legalize this for reasons x, y, and z, what else, of necessity, must we legalize? If we legalize same-sex unions and grand them benefits equaling those of heterosexual marriages, what else must we also allow? Since the criterion of what can marry is no longer child-bearing but is attraction (cf “Born this Way”) we must allow any person to marry whomever or whatever he or she was born attracted to. What if I am attracted to my brother? I was “born that way,” how can you tell me not to marry him? What if I am sexually aroused and attracted to a dog or a tree? With the emphasis no longer on something discernible but on something flimsy (like attraction), we have no reason to hold back on any of these examples. Moreover, a legalization of marriage that sees child-bearing as peripheral and not contingent treads into dangerous waters. Without a clear definition of who can marry whom, which is written into the very flesh of human beings, marriage as an institution becomes fuzzy at best, and meaningless at worst. Consider somebody who is, for lack of a better term, asexual. He was born not attracted to anyone. How is it fair that he cannot receive any of the benefits of a married person? He could argue that he deserves government compensation for not having the capacity to marry. Attraction being so fragile a criterion, this person could well change his mind and end up taking advantage of the system in new ways.

Perhaps at this point you want to maintain that the criterion is not attraction, but consent. This would solve the problem of bestiality, one might say. It does not, however, solve the problem of incest, nor does it solve the problem of the system being more vulnerable to swindlers. Over and against the criterion of consent, those who would want attraction to be the defining character of marriage would continue to argue, and if the criterion can be shifted from child-bearing to consent so easily, how much easier could it be shifted again to attraction?

And so, there is much at stake here. Much more than recognized at first glance. In short, suffice it to say that the government ought not have any interest in changing the definition of marriage precisely because same-sex marriage offers nothing to society that conventual friendship does not.

I did not cover the moral status of the homosexual act. I did not cover the nature of marital love as such. I did not cover the biological questions that same-sex actions raise. I did not cover the rights of children. I did not cover the significance of marriage in the face of ecclesial institutions or places of worship. There is much to be said, but I suppose we can call it a day.

My only request is that responses be polite, articulate, and well-reasoned. I am certainly open to discuss any of my arguments.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on October 19, 2012, 01:46:17 PM
If the male in your post happens upon a group of women and has sex with one or many of them without any children being born than that is not any of the government's business, but if the male and a female have a child the government should be involved. Did I read your post correctly on this matter?

Now say the female dies leaving the male with the child. Does this also concern the government? What if he adopts another child so that his offspring will have a playmat and to help out another couple that had a tragedy?

If the male goes back to his male foot rub partner and they take care of the child together should the government have as much of a say in this relationship as it did in the original male-female relationship that bore the child? What if the two males adopt another child? 

---

What if another male had also visited the female colony and had relations with one of them. This male and female get married and have a baby which involves the government as it did with the first couple.  After visiting the male's village the female realizes her male partner's preference for foot rubs and had an operation the removes her ability to have children. The government tragically (see above adoption) takes the child away for this or other reasons. Is this couple that was married by the government earlier now forced by the government to divorce?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on October 19, 2012, 01:55:32 PM

*Playmate.
Anyway, religion originally didn't interfere, so it shouldn't now.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 19, 2012, 01:55:47 PM
Quote
Same-sex marriages ought not be given by the government the same rewards and benefits as a heterosexual marriage precisely because the integral component of childbearing can never be present. While this argument says nothing about whether two people may or may not, of their own choosing, engage in same-sex genital stimulation, it does maintain that because of the nature of a same-sex couple, the government has no interest and is actually harmed in granting the same benefits to same-sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples.

OK.  So marriage in which procreation is impossible ought not to be legal, because the gov't would not receive the benefit of another young citizen to support that gov't in the future.  But how about this?

With regards to the slippery slope fallacy, or argument of trajectory, here is a quote from Andrew Sullivan: "Do homosexuals actually exist? I think so, and today even the Vatican accepts that some people are constitutively attracted only to members of the same sex. By contrast, no serious person claims there are people constitutively attracted only to relatives, or only to groups rather than individuals. Anyone who can love two women can also love one of them. People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option. Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all. A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not."

Finally, if my post were an essay, I would be penalized for plagiarism:  Most of my information was taken nearly verbatim from this website: http://www.arguingequality.org/chapter5.htm (http://www.arguingequality.org/chapter5.htm)  There's much more information in the link, but I wanted to hone it down to address the specifics in your post.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on October 19, 2012, 02:04:38 PM
Sorry, but I made a major edit/addition to my previous post before the two post above were made. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 19, 2012, 03:26:55 PM
Don't have a  lot of time, but here's a quick response.

1. Notice the emphasis is on bearing the children, not simply raising them. Also, I'm not so sure that it is best. (I can explain).

2. Yes, but remember my use of the subjunctive. "The type of relationship which would result..."

3. True. Not sure that's sufficient grounds to change the institution, however.

I agree that homosexuals truly exist. I also agree that there are people who, and please do not take this the wrong way, have pika or are predisposed to pedophilia. I say this only to demonstrate that having an orientation is not sufficient grounds for acting on said orientation.

I'm very glad that this has remained civil.

Luigison, I'll get to you later. This is sort of a 1 against many thing going on here, so I have a lot more people to respond to.

EDIT: I'm also impressed with the sharpness of the responses. If nothing else, this is a very good intellectual exercise.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 19, 2012, 03:54:10 PM
Even somehow dismissing certain passages in both Old and New Testaments on the grounds of shaky-at-best theology and wishful thinking (which there isn't really room to do anyway (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wjA5mUMGd8ov8opibDrfZgqTPGUBbbVnSe7nq3dcYbA/edit)), what do you do with the beginning of Matthew 19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:1-12&version=ESV)?
I think making Jesus' statements in Matthew 19 relate to same-sex marriage, either pro or con, is a stretch. Jesus was asked a specific question about divorce in opposite-sex marriage (the only kind of marriage that existed at the time), and he answered it. Giving an answer at all was already risky, considering Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who just beheaded John the Baptist five chapters ago for nagging Herod about marriage (specifically, Herod marrying his own sister-in-law), so even if Jesus had wanted to throw in "Oh, by the way, while we're talking about men divorcing their wives, just wanted to mention that men can totally marry men too if they want," (as ridiculous as that would have sounded to a culture that still largely saw wives as property) I certainly wouldn't expect him to.

As for the longer essay linked there, the main response I'd make is in relation to the treatment of the Romans and Corinthians/Timothy passages. In both cases, I don't think we can just look purely at the words and figure out an application -- we need to look at the culture of the time and know what Paul was referring to. Is Paul making general statements about any relations between people of the same sex that we can apply today to modern-day loving, monogamous relationships between Christians of the same sex, or is he referring to a specific practice at the time that may well have been wrong for other reasons? Did same-sex relationships exist in a form resembling their modern day form back then, or were they characterized by exploitation and abuse? If we don't examine the historical context, we run the risk of taking a passage that reads "Don't be like those child molesters -- you know, the ones who drive around in white vans and kidnap children" and coming away from it condemning the act of driving a white van. I haven't read the full essay yet, but skimming through it, I don't seen any treatment of the historical context of the passages in question.

You're citing scriptures that deal with forbidding marriage as demonic.  But first of all, and as is unfortunately rarely brought up in the debate, "marriage" does not extend to people who cannot or will not enter into a heterosexual union.
See, this is where I think it gets into letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 that it would be awesome if everyone could be celibate like him, but if you don't have the self-control for that, go ahead and get married rather than burning with passion. In the immediate context, of course, he's referring to opposite-sex marriage (again, the only kind that existed at the time -- Paul would not have been familiar with any contemporary examples of healthy, loving, monogamous same-sex relationships (though it should be noted that a modern-day egalitarian opposite-sex marriage, with no presumption or legal formality whatsoever that the man owns the woman, would have seemed rather odd to a first-century Roman citizen as well)), but what about people for whom an opposite-sex partner provides no satisfaction? Are all gay people unknowingly gifted with extraordinary self-control?

It's about the definition and has nothing to do with withholding rights. 
Are we talking about religious marriage or legal marriage? Because there are a lot of rights (or privileges, if you prefer) tied to legal marriage.

Again, see Matthew 19.  The "God created Adam and Eve" argument holds more water than its detractors think if one is even going to pretend to believe that Jesus is Lord, because that's exactly what He uses to make his point.
His point is about divorce, though. Using it to prove a point about same-sex marriage isn't too far removed from arguing that it's immoral to marry women who aren't named Eve.

As far as imposing celibacy goes, your argument seems to be that "restrictions are unlawful because it's not Christian to impose them." 
Not all restrictions in general -- but this specific restriction that Paul specifically refused to impose, yes.

But restraint is a undeniably a huge purpose of God's law (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:8-11&version=ESV).  You say it's a matter of not wronging others, but you seem to be implicitly equating "wronging" with "offending" or "restricting" and ignoring Biblical standards of right and wrong.  There's a huge difference between forbidding people from enjoying what God promotes and encourages, as the Pharisees - and evidently the false teachers Timothy dealt with - did; and not allowing people to sin.  Being consistent with not forbidding marriage and acknowledging that "marriage" means a certain thing (while consequently not meaning certain other things) are not mutually exclusive.
But again, you don't even have to extend the "forbidding marriage" argument to same-sex marriage. Even assuming that marriage only means marrying someone of the opposite sex, and saying that gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex and therefore it's okay, what about intersex people? What about people with ambiguous genitalia, or people whose chromosomes don't match their external body? Note that I'm not even talking about transgendered people here (people who don't identify as their assigned/physical gender) -- I'm just talking about the physical. People who, regardless of their state of mind, cannot objectively be classified simply as male or female. Who can they marry? Either we say "Well, we can't figure out what the opposite sex would be for you, so you can't possibly get married", or we try to agree on a standard for exactly how to measure whether someone is male or female -- which will inevitably be controversial and arbitrary and not based on a Biblical standard.

It may be the choice of someone to be celibate, but by the same logic, it's the choice of someone to do anything he wants, from eating lasagna to committing murder.  Just because it's your choice does not make it the right choice (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:12-20&version=ESV).

Apologies if the structure of this post is a little scattered.  Kinda chopped it up over and over to make sure things fit, but I may have overlooked something.
Even so, not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal. Like I said, if the conservative Christian definition of marriage were fully instituted in United States law, my parents' marriage would be invalidated because my dad divorced his first wife for reasons other than Biblically valid ones, and he would not be able to marry anyone unless he went back to her or if she died (of course, incidentally, if we took a literal reading of the Biblically valid reasons for divorce and took them as the only possible ones, then abuse would not be grounds for divorce (which far too many churches do teach)).



To Koopaslaya: Again, the problem I see in your argument is that infertile opposite-sex couples are (under current law, and, I assume, in your example as well) allowed to get married (and adopt, if they so choose), and enjoy the same legal privileges as a child-bearing couple. If I am allowed to marry an infertile woman on the grounds that, while that specific woman can't produce natural children with me, a relationship with Woman as an ideal is fundamentally procreative as compared to a relationship with Man and therefore ought to be encouraged, then I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man, on the grounds that, although that specific human can't produce natural children with me, a relationship with Humanity as an ideal is fundamentally procreative as compared to a relationship with, say, Flora or Fauna, and ought to be encouraged.

You say the point is that that "that type of relationship" -- not specifically the instance of me and an infertile woman, but of Man and Woman -- leads to procreation, but that can only be said meaningfully in comparison to something else. Man and Woman is procreative compared to Man and Man, but Human and Human is procreative compared to Human and Animal, or Human and Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erika_Eiffel). So why draw the lines around Man and Woman? Why not more narrowly around Fertile Man, Infertile Man, Fertile Woman, and Infertile Woman? Why not more broadly around Human? Who defines these monads?

I agree that homosexuals truly exist. I also agree that there are people who, and please do not take this the wrong way, have pika or are predisposed to pedophilia. I say this only to demonstrate that having an orientation is not sufficient grounds for acting on said orientation.
This is a good point, and one that can often be overlooked. Focusing solely on the "Born This Way" argument can be problematic for LGBT people.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 19, 2012, 04:29:22 PM
I also agree that there are people who, and please do not take this the wrong way, have pika or are predisposed to pedophilia. I say this only to demonstrate that having an orientation is not sufficient grounds for acting on said orientation.

The quote I posted that began with "Do homosexuals actually exist" was meant to demonstrate that homosexuality is not as frivolous as other types of attraction (such as incest, polygamy and pedophilia).  With pedophilia, it is very apparent why a person should not act on those attractions: it is harmful toward children, who are emotionally, physically, and mentally vulnerable, and cannot give legitimate consent to such behavior.  How are same-sex relationships more similar to pedophilia than to healthy, functional opposite-sex relationships?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 19, 2012, 06:00:10 PM
I think making Jesus' statements in Matthew 19 relate to same-sex marriage, either pro or con, is a stretch. Jesus was asked a specific question about divorce in opposite-sex marriage (the only kind of marriage that existed at the time), and he answered it. Giving an answer at all was already risky, considering Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who just beheaded John the Baptist five chapters ago for nagging Herod about marriage (specifically, Herod marrying his own sister-in-law), so even if Jesus had wanted to throw in "Oh, by the way, while we're talking about men divorcing their wives, just wanted to mention that men can totally marry men too if they want," (as ridiculous as that would have sounded to a culture that still largely saw wives as property) I certainly wouldn't expect him to.
He is not specifically speaking to homosexuality.  That does not mean that He's not explicitly defining what a marriage is.  It's not at all a stretch to say that His stated definition of marriage applies to the entire institution, not only when divorce is considered.

As for the longer essay linked there, the main response I'd make is in relation to the treatment of the Romans and Corinthians/Timothy passages. In both cases, I don't think we can just look purely at the words and figure out an application -- we need to look at the culture of the time and know what Paul was referring to. Is Paul making general statements about any relations between people of the same sex that we can apply today to modern-day loving, monogamous relationships between Christians of the same sex, or is he referring to a specific practice at the time that may well have been wrong for other reasons? Did same-sex relationships exist in a form resembling their modern day form back then, or were they characterized by exploitation and abuse? If we don't examine the historical context, we run the risk of taking a passage that reads "Don't be like those child molesters -- you know, the ones who drive around in white vans and kidnap children" and coming away from it condemning the act of driving a white van. I haven't read the full essay yet, but skimming through it, I don't seen any treatment of the historical context of the passages in question.
Culture only makes a difference if it actually makes a difference (and there's a difference between reading distinctions in the Bible and adding your own).  There's no reason to assume that whether a relationship is loving/monogamous/committed or not has any bearing on its being lawful.  God is love; love is not God.  Reading into the principle God puts in place, restricting sexuality to one man and one woman is meant to match a certain order He put in place from the moment He created us.  Additionally, part of why I don't buy the idea of "Paul only referred to child molesters and the like" is because if that had been the focus, then it would have been the focus - meaning, it would not have been difficult to include more than "men who lie with other men" to clarify the specifics of what was wrong.  But no such distinction exists in the text.  If we are operating under the assumption that an omniscient God intended Scripture to serve as our moral standard for all time, then it's quite silly to think that He intended for much of it to be void beyond one specific culture.

This is almost the inverse of what some Jews did at the time - except rather than think Christ's law was a gift only to them and not to the Gentiles, it implies that His law is a curse only for the ancients, and not to us moderns.  Now, I don't think this is what you're deliberately trying to say here, but it is something I see stemming from your argument.

See, this is where I think it gets into letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 that it would be awesome if everyone could be celibate like him, but if you don't have the self-control for that, go ahead and get married rather than burning with passion. In the immediate context, of course, he's referring to opposite-sex marriage (again, the only kind that existed at the time -- Paul would not have been familiar with any contemporary examples of healthy, loving, monogamous same-sex relationships (though it should be noted that a modern-day egalitarian opposite-sex marriage, with no presumption or legal formality whatsoever that the man owns the woman, would have seemed rather odd to a first-century Roman citizen as well)), but what about people for whom an opposite-sex partner provides no satisfaction? Are all gay people unknowingly gifted with extraordinary self-control?
The letter and spirit of the law are not mutually exclusive.  God gives self-control to people as they need and ask for it.  This applies to anyone who has a choice between an immoral relationship and no relationship.

Are we talking about religious marriage or legal marriage? Because there are a lot of rights (or privileges, if you prefer) tied to legal marriage.
I guess the idea I'm getting at is that there should be no such thing as legal marriage.  The reason the government protects marriage is because they have an interest in protecting marriage (as pointed out by Koopaslaya, although I would also say that a moral government is going to have a moral reason to protect marriage as well).

His point is about divorce, though. Using it to prove a point about same-sex marriage isn't too far removed from arguing that it's immoral to marry women who aren't named Eve.
Sure it is.  He said "male and female," not "Adam and Eve."  When people make the argument using the latter terminology, it's still illustrating the principle of the former.

Not all restrictions in general -- but this specific restriction that Paul specifically refused to impose, yes.
Well, sure, but he only refused to impose the forbidding of marriage.  Which is already defined as male and female.

But again, you don't even have to extend the "forbidding marriage" argument to same-sex marriage. Even assuming that marriage only means marrying someone of the opposite sex, and saying that gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex and therefore it's okay, what about intersex people? What about people with ambiguous genitalia, or people whose chromosomes don't match their external body? Note that I'm not even talking about transgendered people here (people who don't identify as their assigned/physical gender) -- I'm just talking about the physical. People who, regardless of their state of mind, cannot objectively be classified simply as male or female. Who can they marry? Either we say "Well, we can't figure out what the opposite sex would be for you, so you can't possibly get married", or we try to agree on a standard for exactly how to measure whether someone is male or female -- which will inevitably be controversial and arbitrary and not based on a Biblical standard.
Again, some are born eunuchs.  Meaning, some are biologically born that way.  Jesus acknowledged this - right before saying "let those who are able receive it."  It seems like you're over-complicating this, like it's somehow unthinkable for Jesus to say "this is not for you" to a certain group of people based on a physical factor they've had since birth.  I would refer to Romans 9, especially 9:20 - it isn't for us to protest how we're made.  What we have in common is to obey God.

Even so, not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal. Like I said, if the conservative Christian definition of marriage were fully instituted in United States law, my parents' marriage would be invalidated because my dad divorced his first wife for reasons other than Biblically valid ones, and he would not be able to marry anyone unless he went back to her or if she died (of course, incidentally, if we took a literal reading of the Biblically valid reasons for divorce and took them as the only possible ones, then abuse would not be grounds for divorce (which far too many churches do teach)).
Not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal, no.  Referring specifically to the issue stated in the topic, it's not about making something illegal; it's about preserving something and clarifying the stance that has long been in place.  More generally, it takes wisdom to determine.  To start, which sins are attached legal punishments under the law?  I'm not saying the punishments themselves must necessarily be the same, but it is useful for examining which sins should be regarded as criminal.

I'm not sure of the specifics of your family, and I won't pry.  That said, 1 Corinthians 7 also talks about what makes a marriage no longer binding.  Let it be so when an unbelieving husband separates himself from his wife; this does not have to mean physical separation exclusively.  If he's abusive, then he is probably both unbelieving and separated from her, regardless of whether he calls himself a Christian and/or lives under the same roof.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 19, 2012, 07:01:53 PM
I know this is sort of shifting the topic, but, Koopaslaya, I'm curious to know your thoughts about two hetero-romantic asexuals getting married. Would such a marriage be considered invalid or incomplete, in your mind? Should said individuals remain single/unmarried forever, even if they romantically love and want to commit to each other, simply because they are not interested in having sexual intimacy? (Or are not "burdened" or "burning" with such a desire?)

To that end, what about homo-romantic asexuals who do not engage in sexual activity? (On another note, is that even considered immoral?) And if they want to marry?

(I could make an argument against an asexual marrying a non-asexual person, due to being "unequally yoked"--the sexual person not receiving the intimacy they need, and the asexual person feeling obligated to fulfill that need without mutual desire, each resulting in causing tension in the relationship. But I'm not speaking of such an instance.)

Note I'm asking these questions wanting to know your religious/personal perspective as well as a secular point of view (i.e. your opinion regarding government and benefits and whatnot). I realize your posts and arguments have been secular in nature, but I am curious about your religious view in this instance.

I'm especially interested to see others' views (particularly Christian ones) on the matter considering I identify as hetero-romantic asexual. (Heh, I just outed myself, so to speak.) I'm not sure how I feel about the matter, myself, but part of me feels kind of cheated, knowing I possibly should not be allowed to marry (or it being considered unwise), should I so desire marriage at some point.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 19, 2012, 11:18:04 PM
He is not specifically speaking to homosexuality.  That does not mean that He's not explicitly defining what a marriage is.  It's not at all a stretch to say that His stated definition of marriage applies to the entire institution, not only when divorce is considered.
Again, I think we have to be careful about applying that when the gender of the people involved was clearly not the immediate point Jesus was making. If the big moral debate of our day were over whether it's immoral to live with your parents after you're married, or whether it's immoral to marry the child of a single parent, we'd be quoting ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife’ and debating those nuances.

Culture only makes a difference if it actually makes a difference (and there's a difference between reading distinctions in the Bible and adding your own).
But we can't know if it makes a difference if we aren't aware of the culture.

There's no reason to assume that whether a relationship is loving/monogamous/committed or not has any bearing on its being lawful. 
Not any bearing? The morality of a marriage comes down solely to the genders of the people involved, and has nothing to do with whether they are loving or not? Again, Paul, as I read him, would have some major problems with that.

Additionally, part of why I don't buy the idea of "Paul only referred to child molesters and the like" is because if that had been the focus, then it would have been the focus - meaning, it would not have been difficult to include more than "men who lie with other men" to clarify the specifics of what was wrong.  But no such distinction exists in the text. 
Actually, it might. One possible reading of the Timothy passage notes that arsenokoitai and malakoi are right next to "kidnappers" or "man-stealers." The rest of the list is organized into groups of two or three -- lawless and rebellious people; ungodly and sinners; unholy and profane; father-killers, mother-killers, and murderers; sexually immoral people (pornos; possibly referring to prostitution, as it literally comes from the word for "to sell") and arsenokoitai (literally, "man-bed"); kidnappers; liars and perjurers. What are kidnappers doing there all on their own? One explanation is that "kidnappers" is meant to be grouped with pornos and arsenokoitai -- thereby referring to male prostitutes, the men who frequent them, and those who kidnapped them to sell them into slavery.

If we are operating under the assumption that an omniscient God intended Scripture to serve as our moral standard for all time, then it's quite silly to think that He intended for much of it to be void beyond one specific culture.
We differ on our beliefs on the nature of inspiration. While I believe the books of the Bible were orchestrated by God, I do not believe they were dictated by Him word-for-word, and overall put a noticeably higher emphasis on the human aspect of the Bible than you seem to.

The Bible is divine, but it is also human, and just as with Jesus, we need to be mindful of both aspects.

This is almost the inverse of what some Jews did at the time - except rather than think Christ's law was a gift only to them and not to the Gentiles, it implies that His law is a curse only for the ancients, and not to us moderns.  Now, I don't think this is what you're deliberately trying to say here, but it is something I see stemming from your argument.
We also differ quite a bit here. Christ did not bring law; he fulfilled the law and brought freedom. The dispute in the early church over including or not including the Gentiles hinged on whether Gentile Christians should be made to follow the whole law.

Quote from: Galatians 5:1-6
For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery. Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all! And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace! For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love.

The letter and spirit of the law are not mutually exclusive.  God gives self-control to people as they need and ask for it.  This applies to anyone who has a choice between an immoral relationship and no relationship.
This, of course, is too subjective to get into a dispute over, as any anecdotes of people who earnestly asked for years and never received can be written off as "not real Christians" or "not asking hard enough" or whatever, but suffice it to say I disagree with this.

Again, some are born eunuchs.  Meaning, some are biologically born that way.  Jesus acknowledged this - right before saying "let those who are able receive it."  It seems like you're over-complicating this, like it's somehow unthinkable for Jesus to say "this is not for you" to a certain group of people based on a physical factor they've had since birth.  I would refer to Romans 9, especially 9:20 - it isn't for us to protest how we're made.  What we have in common is to obey God.
Admittedly, this is a good response, and one I kind of saw coming (and it may have been a bit disingenuous of me not to anticipate it in my arguments). I don't have a specific response other than to point back to 1 Corinthians 7. When Paul said "It is better to marry than to burn," he didn't say "except for eunuchs." So if we're going to harmonize his teaching with Jesus's, then we kind of have to assume that Paul was grouping eunuchs in with people who don't want to get married, which still leaves the question of what eunuchs who do want to get married are to do. Not to mention that in most cases, "eunuch" referred not to people who were in an ambiguous grey area of gender, so much as people who had male genitalia that was not fully functional (for example, Deuteronomy 23:1 refers to eunuchs "by crushing or severing" (the Hebrew is literally "bruised by crushing" and "cut off with respect to the penis")). It doesn't work, and parts might be missing, but you can at least tell what their body was going for. That doesn't cover more ambiguous cases, or cases where chromosomes don't match, or when a person has the external organs of one gender and the internal organs of another (because at the time Deuteronomy was written, they didn't know about those possibilities).

Not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal, no.  Referring specifically to the issue stated in the topic, it's not about making something illegal; it's about preserving something and clarifying the stance that has long been in place.  More generally, it takes wisdom to determine.  To start, which sins are attached legal punishments under the law?  I'm not saying the punishments themselves must necessarily be the same, but it is useful for examining which sins should be regarded as criminal.
Under the law, disrespecting your parents, gathering wood for a fire on the Sabbath, being a woman who had sex before her wedding night, and living in a city where people worship other gods are all punishable by death (Exodus 21:17, Numbers 15:32-36, Deuteronomy 22:20-12, and Deuteronomy 13:12-18, respectively). So there's that.

I'm pretty sure there are people in my city who don't worship the same God as I do. Should I move?

On the flipside, Leviticus 19:9 prohibits vineyard owners from harvesting their entire field -- they are required to leave the corners unharvested and leave behind anything they drop, and Deuteronomy 23:24 says that when you're in a vineyard you don't own, you can eat as much as you want as long as you don't take any with you in a container (In context, the prohibition in Leviticus 19:9 apparently carries the punishment of being cut off from the people). So are we abolishing property law? Leviticus 19:34 says "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born." Are we abolishing national borders and citizenship? (As for punishment for this one, I don't see a specific punishment mentioned, but it's right next to "You must keep my Sabbaths and fear my sanctuary," so in light of the severity of the Sabbath laws, I'm pretty sure this is serious)

That said, 1 Corinthians 7 also talks about what makes a marriage no longer binding.  Let it be so when an unbelieving husband separates himself from his wife; this does not have to mean physical separation exclusively.  If he's abusive, then he is probably both unbelieving and separated from her, regardless of whether he calls himself a Christian and/or lives under the same roof.
That's what I say, but a lot of fundamentalists say "No, it doesn't mention abuse specifically, so that's not a valid reason." In addition to being stupid and legalistic, their position also ignores that in the culture of the time, they didn't really have a word for abusing your wife because it wasn't taken for granted that that was something to be avoided. Much like Mark Driscoll claiming that, since the word "rape" is never used in the story of Esther (as though modern concepts of consent existed back then), obviously Esther was a money-hungry slut, not a teenaged-at-best girl who was forced into a harem by an absolute monarch (no, seriously, that's the argument he makes (http://rachelheldevans.com/esther-introduction-princess-whore)).



Asexuality adds an interesting aspect to the debate. We don't really have clear Biblical principles relating to marriage for asexuals -- both Jesus and Paul basically say that marriage is for people who want sex. However, this is again where we need to be aware of cultural context. If Paul said the exact things he said in today's society, then the point he would be making would be "You guys are too egalitarian. You need more patriarchy." And indeed, many see that as the main point to take away from Paul's words on marriage. But Paul didn't live in 21st century America, he lived in 1st century Rome. In that culture, extreme patriarchy was a given. To the original audience, Paul's words would have sounded aggressively egalitarian. In Colossians 3 (and verse 1 of chapter 4... whoever made the chapter divisions for this book was clearly drunk), he takes the common Roman "household codes" -- basically along the lines of "Children, obey your father; wives, obey your husbands; slaves, obey your masters" -- and twists them into something beautiful, pointing toward perfect Christian love, mutual submission, free of the slavery of hierarchies and castes, living somewhere in the "now-not-yet" tension of the new covenant.

Quote
Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all.

Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others. And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond. Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and exhorting one another with all wisdom, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, all with grace in your hearts to God. And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing in the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, so they will not become disheartened. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ. For the one who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there are no exceptions. Masters, treat your slaves with justice and fairness, because you know that you also have a master in heaven.

It's kinda like how Obama gets called a socialist in America, whereas in just about any other first-world country, he'd be in the conservative party.

Anyway, the point is, just because marriage is described in the Bible as being primarily an issue of property, politics, progeny, and patriarchy doesn't mean it's proscribed that way. Marriage today has become more about romance and companionship and mutual partnership, and that's certainly something that asexuals can have -- it is not good for man to be alone -- and something that we can live out in a Christlike way, in the same vein as married couples like Priscilla and Aquila Christianly living out the Roman convention of marriage.

For asexuals specifically, I do think, as a general principle, it would be wise for aces to marry other aces (you guys get the coolest abbreviated name), but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to say that can't be an absolute ruling. Instead, I'll just say that people should know each other very well and know what they're getting into when they get married -- that obviously applies to asexuals and... whatever non-asexuals are called. I guess we'd just be called sexuals?

Is it just me, or does sexual not look like a word anymore? I think I need some sleep (in context, that sounds better than the alternative, "I need to get to bed.").
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 20, 2012, 12:55:31 AM
Again, I think we have to be careful about applying that when the gender of the people involved was clearly not the immediate point Jesus was making. If the big moral debate of our day were over whether it's immoral to live with your parents after you're married, or whether it's immoral to marry the child of a single parent, we'd be quoting ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife’ and debating those nuances.
I don't know about that.  I think the example you bring up would be quibbling over language because we're talking about a principle behind those words - that a man starts his own family upon marrying.  But just like that should be kept in mind when appropriate, a definition of the institution, even when it's not the main point (and I hesitate to say it wasn't the main point because these issues are all intertwined anyway), shouldn't be ignored when dealing with a matter that also pertains to that institution.


But we can't know if it makes a difference if we aren't aware of the culture.
Seems like it would be a whole lot better to air on the side of caution if you can't know.

Not any bearing? The morality of a marriage comes down solely to the genders of the people involved, and has nothing to do with whether they are loving or not? Again, Paul, as I read him, would have some major problems with that.
Heh, admittedly poorly worded.  The point I was attempting to make is just this: while a good marriage is going to have love, commitment, and monogamy, it does not follow that love, commitment, and monogamy justify a relationship or equate/qualify for a marriage regardless of gender.  In fact, I would question why monogamy is such a huge deal at this point.  How do polyamorous relationships fit into this all-inclusive view of sexuality?

Actually, it might. One possible reading of the Timothy passage notes that arsenokoitai and malakoi are right next to "kidnappers" or "man-stealers." The rest of the list is organized into groups of two or three -- lawless and rebellious people; ungodly and sinners; unholy and profane; father-killers, mother-killers, and murderers; sexually immoral people (pornos; possibly referring to prostitution, as it literally comes from the word for "to sell") and arsenokoitai (literally, "man-bed"); kidnappers; liars and perjurers. What are kidnappers doing there all on their own? One explanation is that "kidnappers" is meant to be grouped with pornos and arsenokoitai -- thereby referring to male prostitutes, the men who frequent them, and those who kidnapped them to sell them into slavery.
Just looking at this on the face of it, it seems unlikely.  Every other grouping contains sets of synonyms that more or less all mean the same thing.  Now, of course, it's entirely possible that male prostitution and homosexuality and kidnapping coincided a lot, but they are not by necessity all in the same category.  It should also be remembered that pornos does not always refer to prostitution specifically, but sometimes to sexual immorality as a whole.

We differ on our beliefs on the nature of inspiration. While I believe the books of the Bible were orchestrated by God, I do not believe they were dictated by Him word-for-word, and overall put a noticeably higher emphasis on the human aspect of the Bible than you seem to.
Out of curiosity, would you say, then, that you hold to inerrancy?

The Bible is divine, but it is also human, and just as with Jesus, we need to be mindful of both aspects.
I'm not sure what this means in practical terms.  I would say that, since you compare the Bible to Jesus in terms of being divine and human, it would be good to remember that Jesus' divinity was not diminished because of his being human.

We also differ quite a bit here. Christ did not bring law; he fulfilled the law and brought freedom. The dispute in the early church over including or not including the Gentiles hinged on whether Gentile Christians should be made to follow the whole law.
Okay, but despite saying "fulfilled" what you seem to be meaning by it is basically just "abolished."  Christ didn't need to bring the law because it had already been given.  But a big part of His ministry was getting people back on-track with what all of it really meant.  Kind of a waste of time if He would soon render it all moot in short order.  He also said that not even a small part of the law would pass away - and that's true; even the need for atonement is still there, it's just that we no longer have to use animals as the sacrifice because the perfect one has been made for all time and people.

Admittedly, this is a good response, and one I kind of saw coming (and it may have been a bit disingenuous of me not to anticipate it in my arguments). I don't have a specific response other than to point back to 1 Corinthians 7. When Paul said "It is better to marry than to burn," he didn't say "except for eunuchs." So if we're going to harmonize his teaching with Jesus's, then we kind of have to assume that Paul was grouping eunuchs in with people who don't want to get married, which still leaves the question of what eunuchs who do want to get married are to do. Not to mention that in most cases, "eunuch" referred not to people who were in an ambiguous grey area of gender, so much as people who had male genitalia that was not fully functional (for example, Deuteronomy 23:1 refers to eunuchs "by crushing or severing" (the Hebrew is literally "bruised by crushing" and "cut off with respect to the weenus")). It doesn't work, and parts might be missing, but you can at least tell what their body was going for. That doesn't cover more ambiguous cases, or cases where chromosomes don't match, or when a person has the external organs of one gender and the internal organs of another (because at the time Deuteronomy was written, they didn't know about those possibilities).
This is trickier than other areas.  However, I don't think the principle drastically changes because of the specifics - that is, if there are biological anomalies, that's how it is for that person.  This again relates to the issue of self-control that's been touched upon already.  And there really isn't a convenient solution that many would want to hear.  I don't mean to be dismissive here, but I'm seeing certain things in Scripture that I also cannot dismiss.

Under the law, disrespecting your parents, gathering wood for a fire on the Sabbath, being a woman who had sex before her wedding night, and living in a city where people worship other gods are all punishable by death (Exodus 21:17, Numbers 15:32-36, Deuteronomy 22:20-12, and Deuteronomy 13:12-18, respectively). So there's that.

I'm pretty sure there are people in my city who don't worship the same God as I do. Should I move?

On the flipside, Leviticus 19:9 prohibits vineyard owners from harvesting their entire field -- they are required to leave the corners unharvested and leave behind anything they drop, and Deuteronomy 23:24 says that when you're in a vineyard you don't own, you can eat as much as you want as long as you don't take any with you in a container (In context, the prohibition in Leviticus 19:9 apparently carries the punishment of being cut off from the people). So are we abolishing property law? Leviticus 19:34 says "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born." Are we abolishing national borders and citizenship? (As for punishment for this one, I don't see a specific punishment mentioned, but it's right next to "You must keep my Sabbaths and fear my sanctuary," so in light of the severity of the Sabbath laws, I'm pretty sure this is serious)
I do think we would do well as a culture to shift more toward many of these ideals and principles, especially recognizing the Sabbath again.  Not that we can do any of this just by forcing them in and of themselves.  There would have to be a huge change in the hearts of people first, and a build from the ground up.  And I don't know quite how I regard the relationship between sin and crime (it's always been more important to me to identify sin as the larger issue that it is and deal with crime on a more case-by-case basis).  I would just point out that just as immorality is not always grounds for criminalizing an action, neither should this principle be treated as an absolute condemnation of criminalizing actions on the basis of their immorality.  As an aside, the latter passage is not talking about living in cities with those who don't worship God, it's talking about people deliberately going into cities and leading people away from God.  False teachers, in other words.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on October 20, 2012, 11:10:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on October 20, 2012, 11:14:43 AM
Those liberal glasses were a dead giveaway.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on October 20, 2012, 02:29:20 PM
I know this is sort of shifting the topic, but, Koopaslaya, I'm curious to know your thoughts about two hetero-romantic asexuals getting married.

From what I understand about Koopaslaya's position, the government's preoccupation with hetero-romantic marriage is that it can bring about the birth of a new citizen, and from the acceptance of that institution, "what else, of necessity, must we legalize?" The answer is marriage for all heterosexual couples, regardless of whether or not they "intend" or even have the physical capability of bearing children. I figure that it is easier at the sociological and bureaucratic level to just say that all couples who theoretically could bear children should come under the wing of the institution of marriage, than to pick and choose.

This is my first post in this thread-- a topic that I cared little about, and thus did not express an opinion. That changes now. Koopaslaya has obviously put some thought into his post, but I have serious qualms concerning the focus of his argument: that child-bearing is good for the country, and thus assistance (through the form of marriage) should be given to increase the quality of quantity of children.

From what I see, this overlooks the fact that children are only loosely associated with marriage. The government doesn't give us the means to have children. Plenty of children are born out of wedlock, and similarly, plenty of children are relinquished to the lottery that is adoption (metaphor stemming from the quality, and availability of foster care). These are all children that will have a place in society, yet many of which will not have caregivers who receive the blessings of the time-honored institution of marriage.

Foster care is a problem that I feel could be mopped up in part by gay marriage, assuming the proper tax benefits are handed out, and the screening process remains rigorous. Unless someone can prove to me that same-sex couples cannot provide the same level of care as heterosexual couples (with the exception of infants, which do reportedly benefit from breastfeeding), I will have a difficult time stepping away from this standpoint. I cannot deny that this may promote homosexual tendencies in children, but I would raise a guess that this will come from increased tolerance of its existence, as opposed to somehow changing the biological makeup of the child. In evolutionary terms, we have a lot going for heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality, anyway.

From the child's point of view, the relationship of their gay, married caretakers may (or rather, should) be seen as a strong sense of friendship and altruism, qualities which make for a good marriage regardless of sex.


...note that I will refuse to engage in any religious debate over the nature of homosexuality. Old Testament rules concerning homosexuality may as well just be enforcing "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth," (Genesis 9:1) which amusingly reminds me of like Koopaslaya's approach to the matter. And although I have yet to witness otherwise, homosexuality need not be viewed as equivalent to promiscuity.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 20, 2012, 02:55:37 PM
I don't know about that.  I think the example you bring up would be quibbling over language because we're talking about a principle behind those words - that a man starts his own family upon marrying.  But just like that should be kept in mind when appropriate, a definition of the institution, even when it's not the main point (and I hesitate to say it wasn't the main point because these issues are all intertwined anyway), shouldn't be ignored when dealing with a matter that also pertains to that institution.
I'd be careful about saying "That theoretical controversy would be silly and obviously wrong, but this one we're in now definitely isn't." It's hard to have perspective on these kinds of things while you're in them. Recommended reading on this topic is Nellie Norton: or, Southern slavery and the Bible. (http://archive.org/details/nellienortonorso00warr), published in 1864. Written loosely in novel form, with the intention of refuting Christian arguments in favor of abolition. A century and a half ago, Christians defended slavery just as vociferously as Christians today decry same-sex relationships -- and with more Scriptural support to boot.

Quote from: pp. 10 - 13
"The curse pronounced by God, through Noah, upon Ham and his descendants, is subject to no such restrictions and limitations [...] It was to extend from generation to generation, to be perpetual. [...]"

"My dear uncle, you shock me, you horrify me [...] Surely this cannot be true; but, if it is, I apprehend, the reason is to be found in the fact, that in the dark age in which Abraham lived, the people were not civilized and enlightened as they are now. They saw through a glass darkly, that was but the misty twilight of our day."

"But Nelly, it was so ordained of God, and He was not less wise and good then than now. [...] Your sympathy for the slave is, I fear, quite above your reverence for Deity. [...]"

"[...]I cannot believe it. I do not wish to believe it." Nellie's cheek flushed, and she grew animated as she emphasized the closing sentence: "Your proofs are insufficient. [...]"

"Then," continued her uncle, "they shall be strong enough for you, if you will take divine testimony. Will you be kind enough to open the Bible and read Leviticus xxv:44-46?"

"[...]And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them after you; they shall be your bondmen forever. [...]"

[...]

Nellie's mind was not at rest. The Bible certainly did teach that slavery was a perpetual institution. Its chains were forged in heaven, by God himself, and so fastened, that no power could sunder them but His. [...] Her Sabbath School teachers had taught her that slavery was inhuman, iniquitous, the sum of all villainies, that there was no authority whatever for it in the word of God [...] that it was the peculiar mission of the more enlightened and christianised people of the North to 'break every yoke' and set every bondman free [...] "How can it be? certainly the Bible is not a pro-slavery book. Surely! God is not a pro-slavery God. Impossible!! but here is His word. If it should be true, (and how am I to doubt it? have I not been taught to believe, to reverence, to obey it?) what am I to do? Give into the idea of slavery? Never, never.

*Note that I do not intend here to compare the struggles faced by LGBT people to slavery; only to point out the similarities in conservative Christian arguments in opposition of expanding rights in the two situations (which is not intended to equate traditional views on same-sex relations with owning slaves).

Seems like it would be a whole lot better to air on the side of caution if you can't know.
We differ on which side counts as the safe side. I think the safe side is the one that leads to lower teen suicide rates. (See also: "What If I'm Wrong?" (http://www.affirmingtheology.com/what-if-im-wrong/))

Heh, admittedly poorly worded.  The point I was attempting to make is just this: while a good marriage is going to have love, commitment, and monogamy, it does not follow that love, commitment, and monogamy justify a relationship or equate/qualify for a marriage regardless of gender.  In fact, I would question why monogamy is such a huge deal at this point.  How do polyamorous relationships fit into this all-inclusive view of sexuality?
Legally, I think there are more details to figure out on how to make polyamorous marriages work before we go there (i.e., if there's no limit to the number of spouses I can have, what happens if I marry a thousand people and want them all to be able to visit me in the hospital?).

I should note, of course, that polygamy was practiced extensively throughout the Old Testament. It's allowed under OT law, as long as you don't marry two sisters like Jacob did -- though, interestingly, Ezekiel 23 metaphorically portrays God as a man marrying two sisters. And while we can point to ideals and make extrapolations and such, if we're just looking at the rules, the New Testament never prohibits polygamy for those who are not in church leadership positions.

Out of curiosity, would you say, then, that you hold to inerrancy?
I don't think inerrancy is a helpful term to use. I think it contributes to a mindset that treats the Bible like 30,000 individual Confucius statements handed down on individual golden tablets, utterly divorced from any cultural or historical or even grammatical context other than our own.

I'm gonna steal Rachel Held Evan's words here:

Quote from: Rachel Held Evans
As a Christian, I believe that the Bible represents a sacred collection of poems, stories, accounts, and letters that are inspired by God and shared by his people. As an honest reader, I confess that there are times when the Bible touches me, times when the Bible troubles me, and times when the Bible confounds me.  As an interpreter, I acknowledge that my understanding of the Bible’s meaning is fallible.

I'd recommend her series of posts (http://rachelheldevans.com/?category=Bible%20Series) on Peter Enns's Inspiration and Incarnation (or probably also that book itself, though I haven't read it yet) for a better picture of my view.

I'm not sure what this means in practical terms.  I would say that, since you compare the Bible to Jesus in terms of being divine and human, it would be good to remember that Jesus' divinity was not diminished because of his being human.
This is actually a pretty complex issue. Philippians 2:7 is a good starting place, but that one tiny verse raises so many questions. Did Jesus have grey hair? Could he have benefited from corrective lenses? More interestingly, were there ever things he didn't know? Did he ever start a carpentry job thinking it would only take a few minutes, only to find he had underestimated the amount of work at hand and it ended up taking hours? In Luke 8:45, when he asked "Who was it that touched me?", did he know the answer? Could Jesus truly be fully human without knowing what it was like to be mistaken about something?

But a big part of His ministry was getting people back on-track with what all of it really meant.  Kind of a waste of time if He would soon render it all moot in short order.
He can render "the law" -- the 613 rules and regulations outlined in Exodus through Numbers -- moot without rendering moot "what all of it really meant."

Quote from: Romans 13:8-10
Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Love for God and love for neighbor (the former of which is best expressed through the latter, as per Matthew 25:40) are the guiding principles behind all the law, along with a third principle -- looking different from how we used to. Vertical, horizontal, and circular. The 613 laws given to the Israelites after coming out of Egypt were the intersection of those principles with their time and place.

How do we look different today? The number one way we are to look different now is by following the first two principles, loving God and loving our neighbor -- they will know we are Christians by our love. Beyond that, it's complex and personal and different for every individual. Because we're no longer one monolithic people all coming out of the same slavery and the same sinful culture at the same time -- we're billions of people of every gender, every race, every color, every nationality, every caste, every orientation, every career, every population density, every level of ability, each coming out of our own personal slavery at different times in different places. Some people are going to stop eating meat sacrificed to idols as a way of making a clean break from their former life, others won't need to. The dietary laws are all rescinded, but maybe for one person in particular, eating pork reminds them of their days as a corrupt accountant for a slaughterhouse, and so they'll choose to stay away from it anyway.

I don't mean to be dismissive here, but I'm seeing certain things in Scripture that I also cannot dismiss.
The way I see it, dismissing people is dismissing Scripture. Again, Matthew 25:40.

Not saying that's what you're doing; just a general principle to keep in mind.

I do think we would do well as a culture to shift more toward many of these ideals and principles, especially recognizing the Sabbath again.
Especially the Sabbath? The one commandment of the ten that's not reiterated in the New Testament?

Out of curiosity, Saturday or Sunday?

As an aside, the latter passage is not talking about living in cities with those who don't worship God, it's talking about people deliberately going into cities and leading people away from God.  False teachers, in other words.
Yes, but note that the penalty was not just to punish the false teachers, or just the ones they led astray.

Quote from: Deuteronomy 13:15-16
[Y]ou must by all means slaughter the inhabitants of that city with the sword; annihilate with the sword everyone in it, as well as the livestock. You must gather all of its plunder into the middle of the plaza and burn the city and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It will be an abandoned ruin forever – it must never be rebuilt again.
(And no, the admonition in the preceding verse that "You must investigate thoroughly and inquire carefully" is not particularly reassuring to me.)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 21, 2012, 01:06:27 AM
Forgot to include this part:

Just looking at this on the face of it, it seems unlikely.  Every other grouping contains sets of synonyms that more or less all mean the same thing.  Now, of course, it's entirely possible that male prostitution and homosexuality and kidnapping coincided a lot, but they are not by necessity all in the same category.  It should also be remembered that pornos does not always refer to prostitution specifically, but sometimes to sexual immorality as a whole.
Again, this is where we should make every effort to be aware of the culture Paul was writing in. It's true that same-sex relationships and kidnapping, as the two concepts exist today, do not have a lot of overlap. But did they in Paul's day?

Picture a modern-day Paul listing a bunch of sins in a list like that, and one part of the list mentions "gamblers, jockeys, and bookies." Now fast-forward to the year 4000. 41st-century scholars, who speak a very different language than 21st-century American English, come across Paul's epistle to the Nevadans. The meaning of the word "bookie" has been lost to history, but the 41st-century scholars know it comes from the root word "book." Without any knowledge of our culture, a likely guess would be that Paul was condemning people who read books. Similarly, they know from scraps and fragments of other writing from within a century or two that one possible meaning of "jockey" referred to people who rode horses. Again, without knowing the culture, it would be a reasonable guess to say that Paul was condemning all horseback riding.

On top of that, let's say that in the year 4000, all gambling is done on slot machines -- horseracing ended long ago due to animal cruelty concerns. So now the standard accepted teaching is that 2012 Paul said it's wrong to play the slots, ride horses, and read books. And then someone proposes that maybe we're mistranslating it and those three are actually all tied together. And then they respond "No, that's silly -- what do horses and books have to do with slot machines?"

In all likelihood, arsenokoitai refers to some form of male-on-male sexual act, just as jockey has something to do with riding a horse and bookie has something to do with books. But what kind? What would have been the nature of the relationship? Would there have been mutual consent, or was it rape (which, of course, is wrong regardless of gender)? Along this line, I strongly recommend this essay (http://messesofben.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-the-bible-does-not-forbid-homosexuality/).
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 21, 2012, 09:42:22 AM
I'd be careful about saying "That theoretical controversy would be silly and obviously wrong, but this one we're in now definitely isn't." It's hard to have perspective on these kinds of things while you're in them. Recommended reading on this topic is Nellie Norton: or, Southern slavery and the Bible. (http://archive.org/details/nellienortonorso00warr), published in 1864. Written loosely in novel form, with the intention of refuting Christian arguments in favor of abolition. A century and a half ago, Christians defended slavery just as vociferously as Christians today decry same-sex relationships -- and with more Scriptural support to boot.
Not all Christians.  See "William Wilberforce," for example.  And what I'm saying is that the principle of those words you cited would hold true if interpreted correctly, and might speak to a certain controversy if one arose, not that it has no place.

I should note, of course, that polygamy was practiced extensively throughout the Old Testament. It's allowed under OT law, as long as you don't marry two sisters like Jacob did -- though, interestingly, Ezekiel 23 metaphorically portrays God as a man marrying two sisters. And while we can point to ideals and make extrapolations and such, if we're just looking at the rules, the New Testament never prohibits polygamy for those who are not in church leadership positions.
Jesus does - again, at the same time He defines marriage and sets the format for it.  Male and female.  Singular.

I don't think inerrancy is a helpful term to use. I think it contributes to a mindset that treats the Bible like 30,000 individual Confucius statements handed down on individual golden tablets, utterly divorced from any cultural or historical or even grammatical context other than our own.
I don't think it's divorced from any culture but our own; I think it applies to every culture.  I believe God sets absolutes in place that take precedence over the cultural assumptions we make.

This is actually a pretty complex issue. Philippians 2:7 is a good starting place, but that one tiny verse raises so many questions. Did Jesus have grey hair? Could he have benefited from corrective lenses? More interestingly, were there ever things he didn't know? Did he ever start a carpentry job thinking it would only take a few minutes, only to find he had underestimated the amount of work at hand and it ended up taking hours? In Luke 8:45, when he asked "Who was it that touched me?", did he know the answer? Could Jesus truly be fully human without knowing what it was like to be mistaken about something?
The idea is that He relied entirely on the Father, just as man was supposed to do before the fall.

He can render "the law" -- the 613 rules and regulations outlined in Exodus through Numbers -- moot without rendering moot "what all of it really meant."
But again, he has explicitly said that he did not come to do that.  "Fulfill" clearly does not mean "abolish" because he used them both in the same sentence, portraying them as different things.

Love for God and love for neighbor (the former of which is best expressed through the latter, as per Matthew 25:40) are the guiding principles behind all the law, along with a third principle -- looking different from how we used to. Vertical, horizontal, and circular. The 613 laws given to the Israelites after coming out of Egypt were the intersection of those principles with their time and place.
It's a stretch to say that love for God is always expressed best through love for neighbor, at least with how you're using "love."  It rightfully includes loving one's neighbor - that said, "love" means doing a lot of different things, including looking at the bigger picture.  The "what if I'm wrong" argument conveniently fails to take into account that sin that damages the soul.  Consequences of sin are not always measurable on earthly terms.

How do we look different today? The number one way we are to look different now is by following the first two principles, loving God and loving our neighbor -- they will know we are Christians by our love. Beyond that, it's complex and personal and different for every individual.
But not so different that moral principles differ.  "If you love me, keep my commands."

The way I see it, dismissing people is dismissing Scripture. Again, Matthew 25:40.
Sure, but this goes both ways; the other way around - dismissing people by dismissing Scripture - is dismissing people in a hugely damaging way.  Love does not equal indulgence.  Sometimes it means restraint.

Especially the Sabbath? The one commandment of the ten that's not reiterated in the New Testament?
The commandment is most certainly in play in the New Testament.  Jesus does teach on the Sabbath, noting what the Pharisees were doing wrong with it (turning it into just a different kind of duty rather than as a time of rest).

Out of curiosity, Saturday or Sunday?
That's a pretty good question.  I'm not certain it matters, but would lean toward Sunday as our Lord's Day given that we have Jesus rising from the dead then.

Yes, but note that the penalty was not just to punish the false teachers, or just the ones they led astray.
With the implication that the false teaching has become ubiquitous in its being held to, or allowed to propagate by those living there.

Again, this is where we should make every effort to be aware of the culture Paul was writing in. It's true that same-sex relationships and kidnapping, as the two concepts exist today, do not have a lot of overlap. But did they in Paul's day?

Picture a modern-day Paul listing a bunch of sins in a list like that, and one part of the list mentions "gamblers, jockeys, and bookies." Now fast-forward to the year 4000. 41st-century scholars, who speak a very different language than 21st-century American English, come across Paul's epistle to the Nevadans. The meaning of the word "bookie" has been lost to history, but the 41st-century scholars know it comes from the root word "book." Without any knowledge of our culture, a likely guess would be that Paul was condemning people who read books. Similarly, they know from scraps and fragments of other writing from within a century or two that one possible meaning of "jockey" referred to people who rode horses. Again, without knowing the culture, it would be a reasonable guess to say that Paul was condemning all horseback riding.

On top of that, let's say that in the year 4000, all gambling is done on slot machines -- horseracing ended long ago due to animal cruelty concerns. So now the standard accepted teaching is that 2012 Paul said it's wrong to play the slots, ride horses, and read books. And then someone proposes that maybe we're mistranslating it and those three are actually all tied together. And then they respond "No, that's silly -- what do horses and books have to do with slot machines?"

In all likelihood, arsenokoitai refers to some form of male-on-male sexual act, just as jockey has something to do with riding a horse and bookie has something to do with books. But what kind? What would have been the nature of the relationship? Would there have been mutual consent, or was it rape (which, of course, is wrong regardless of gender)? Along this line, I strongly recommend this essay (http://messesofben.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-the-bible-does-not-forbid-homosexuality/).
First off, you make this argument as if the "epistle to the Nevadans" were suddenly found two thousand years later, and as if there didn't exist between 21st century and 41st century a massive history of the development of language and convention.  Translations change over time and but the meanings don't change with the language we use.  You present a sudden contrast between two cultures in your example but the way cultures develop in reality is gradually.

Even so, taking cultural context into account, you would still have to prove that 2012 Paul was not condemning the act of reading books in and of itself (can I assume e-readers or other such future technology have taken over as the main method of conveying textual information?).  Maybe he really was telling people not to do any of those things in and of themselves.  Which is why you'd go to the other epistles written by 2012 Paul and - lo and behold - they mention and condemn the same activities, though they're not all in the same groupings as in 1 Nevada.  But I don't see the discussion developing much beyond this point because we think very differently on the nature of the law under the new covenant, and on how the Bible works, for that matter.  The fact is, you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to, which is what I'd wager both sides of the argument think the other is doing.  Speaking of rape, maybe rape was condemned then because in a culture where women were viewed as property, rape was synonymous with theft?  But now that we're in a different situation as a culture, maybe the condemnation of things like rape no longer apply?  After all, rape isn't mentioned that much in the Bible, and when it is, the cultural context needs to be brought into account to determine what behavior is actually being condemned.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 21, 2012, 02:12:32 PM
Not all Christians.  See "William Wilberforce," for example.
Not all, but certainly most. The victory of abolitionism in Christianity is an instance of longstanding, traditional, well-established readings of Scripture being disregarded in pursuit of progress toward an ideal of perfect love.

If there are Wilberforces today on the issue of same-sex relations, they are not the ones arguing to maintain the status quo. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with maintaining statuses quo, but it's certainly not what Wilberforce did in his situation.

I don't think it's divorced from any culture but our own; I think it applies to every culture.  I believe God sets absolutes in place that take precedence over the cultural assumptions we make.
But you seem to be acting like we don't even need to attempt to be aware of cultural assumptions we may be making. You're looking at a first-century text from an entirely different culture than ours and assuming we can instantly apply those words to the modern issue of sexual orientation, a concept that did not exist in the public consciousness until at least the mid-1800s.

We cannot read the Bible without bias and subjectivity. We can either attempt to understand the lens we're looking through, and how it differs from the lens the original audience had, or we can pretend we aren't looking through a lens.

But again, he has explicitly said that he did not come to do that.  "Fulfill" clearly does not mean "abolish" because he used them both in the same sentence, portraying them as different things.

Quote from: Matthew 5:17-20
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I  tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is an interesting one. Not a single stroke of the law will pass away until everything takes place, and anyone who breaks the least command and teaches others to do so will be the least in the kingdom of heaven (though, interestingly, it sounds like they're still in the kingdom of heaven)... and then Paul goes and completely throws out circumcision, feasts, dietary laws, ceremonial laws, and says

Quote from: Galatians 5:1-6
For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery. Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all! And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. [...] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love.

It looks a lot like Paul is teaching people to break the least of the commandments. Circumcision was not a suggestion: "The Lord spoke to Moses: “Tell the Israelites, ‘When a woman produces offspring and bears a male child, [...o]n the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin must be circumcised.'"" (Leviticus 12:1-3)

So if Jesus was literally saying that every one of the 613 laws is binding until the end of time, then Paul was a false prophet -- and then suddenly we don't have any New Testament prooftexts against homosexuality, just Leviticus.

The passage I keep coming back to in figuring this out is Romans 13. "Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

It's a stretch to say that love for God is always expressed best through love for neighbor, at least with how you're using "love."  It rightfully includes loving one's neighbor - that said, "love" means doing a lot of different things, including looking at the bigger picture.  The "what if I'm wrong" argument conveniently fails to take into account that sin that damages the soul.  Consequences of sin are not always measurable on earthly terms.
But not so different that moral principles differ.  "If you love me, keep my commands."
Sure, but this goes both ways; the other way around - dismissing people by dismissing Scripture - is dismissing people in a hugely damaging way.  Love does not equal indulgence.  Sometimes it means restraint.
This is not an argument that homosexuality is wrong; this is an argument that sin is wrong, with the sinfulness of homosexuality taken as a given.

The commandment is most certainly in play in the New Testament.  Jesus does teach on the Sabbath, noting what the Pharisees were doing wrong with it (turning it into just a different kind of duty rather than as a time of rest).
The religious authorities of the day certainly did add unnecessary baggage to a lot of the law, but the fact remains that the law said that doing any work whatsoever on the Sabbath, including picking up sticks, was punishable by death. Jesus did work on the Sabbath, and led his disciples to do the same, in picking wheat to eat. Going strictly by the letter of the law, I don't see how the Pharisees' accusation was incorrect -- when the Israelites were getting manna in the desert, they weren't allowed to pick up manna on the Sabbath (which would have been as much or less work than picking grain) -- if they wanted to eat on the Sabbath, they had to plan ahead on Friday.

With the implication that the false teaching has become ubiquitous in its being held to, or allowed to propagate by those living there.
Every single man, woman, child, and animal in the town? Really?

First off, you make this argument as if the "epistle to the Nevadans" were suddenly found two thousand years later, and as if there didn't exist between 21st century and 41st century a massive history of the development of language and convention.  Translations change over time and but the meanings don't change with the language we use.  You present a sudden contrast between two cultures in your example but the way cultures develop in reality is gradually.
There's a massive history, to be sure, but it's not an unbroken chain. For example, conservative evangelical Christianity generally didn't have a problem with abortion until the early-to-mid-1980s (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/).

Even so, taking cultural context into account, you would still have to prove that 2012 Paul was not condemning the act of reading books in and of itself (can I assume e-readers or other such future technology have taken over as the main method of conveying textual information?).  Maybe he really was telling people not to do any of those things in and of themselves.  Which is why you'd go to the other epistles written by 2012 Paul and - lo and behold - they mention and condemn the same activities, though they're not all in the same groupings as in 1 Nevada. 
There's one other passage that again mentions "bookies", as part of a list; and then there's another passage that talks about people "abandoning God, following their books filled with sinful things." The first one doesn't clear things up at all, because we still don't know what the word means. In the second one, are books inherently evil? Are books by necessity filled with sinful things, or is 2012!Paul only speaking against the books that do have sinful things in them?

I'm reminded of a change made from the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV: 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-15a

1984: ‟You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the
Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.”
2011: ‟You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the
Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.”

There is an enormous difference between "The Jews who killed Jesus" and "The Jews, who killed Jesus". Paul was not saying all Jews killed Jesus, he was making a reference to the ones who did. Similarly, 2012!Paul could be saying all books are evil, or he could be talking about a subset of evil books, and Romans 1 could either be saying all homoerotic acts are inherently idolatrous and/or promiscuous, or could instead be decrying a specific subset of idolatrous/promiscuous homoerotic acts, with the morality of homoerotic acts in general not being addressed. Can we say for sure which one he was going for?

But I don't see the discussion developing much beyond this point because we think very differently on the nature of the law under the new covenant, and on how the Bible works, for that matter.  The fact is, you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to, which is what I'd wager both sides of the argument think the other is doing.  Speaking of rape, maybe rape was condemned then because in a culture where women were viewed as property, rape was synonymous with theft?  But now that we're in a different situation as a culture, maybe the condemnation of things like rape no longer apply?  After all, rape isn't mentioned that much in the Bible, and when it is, the cultural context needs to be brought into account to determine what behavior is actually being condemned.
Actually, yeah, usually when rape is mentioned in the Bible, it's treated more as theft/destruction of property, due to the highly patriarchal culture it was written in. And we should not blindly apply the applicable laws about it to modern-day society -- for example, the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that a man who rapes an unmarried woman must marry her. At that time, once word got out that she was no longer a virgin, no man would be willing to buy marry her, and she would therefore have no way to provide for herself once her father died. Therefore, if a man was going to take her virginity and her marriagability, he was responsible for providing for her for the rest of her life. You break it, you buy it. In modern western society, when a lack of virginity does not have the same life-destroying stigma it did for women even just a couple centuries ago, and when women are perfectly capable of getting jobs and earning a living on their own anyway, applying that law would be barbaric, infringing on the woman's freedom (where before, in a super-patriarchy, it was the only way she could have had a modicum of freedom).

But just because rape isn't wrong for the reasons it was wrong in Moses' time doesn't mean it's not wrong. I seem to remember something about loving your neighbor as yourself. Having sex with someone without their consent is a pretty massive violation of that law.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 21, 2012, 03:33:43 PM
Those liberal glasses were a dead giveaway.

The opposite of liberal glasses:

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F44%2FBarryGoldwater.png&hash=28a3924237d7c57f3c8db7c0412325e0)

Also, I've noticed that, at any given point, this topic contains an extremely lengthy argument between CrossEyed and Turtlekid over Biblical hermeneutics.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Ym9iYnlzcTEzMzc equalsign on October 21, 2012, 04:25:35 PM
Conservative glasses?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 21, 2012, 04:34:40 PM
Also, I've noticed that, at any given point, this topic contains an extremely lengthy argument between CrossEyed and Turtlekid over Biblical hermeneutics.
Well, at any given point in 2012. In 2008, I was telling everyone how awesome Exodus International is (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg525468#msg525468).

*cringe*

Sorry.



I've noticed that approximately 41% of all the words ever posted in this four-year-old topic were posted in the last four days.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 21, 2012, 05:18:52 PM
Conservative glasses?

Yeah man, that's Barry Goldwater. Premier American conservative of the 20th century, although not in the sense today's conservatives would define the word.

Dude had some *****in' glasses.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 21, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
This thread has been around for quite awhile, I'd say there's at least a few of us whose opinions have evolved (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg525173#msg525173) over time.  I think this is where I actually came out (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg525582#msg525582) for the first time.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 21, 2012, 11:02:06 PM
Heh. I came out as "probably slightly bi" in this post (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12960.msg563411#msg563411) in 2009, and then went back and edited it out in 2010 because I was back into repression mode.

In that vein, I'm kind of tempted to go back and edit a bunch of my 2008 posts now. (Of course, now that I'm a mod, I could also edit everyone else's posts...)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 21, 2012, 11:07:20 PM
Indeed, my views on gay marriage and homosexuality have shifted from extreme intolerance to complete acceptance.

And I've edited quite a few of my posts from 2005-2007 because they were embarrassingly stupid and I didn't want lurkers seeing them and getting a bad impression. Especially my posts about evolution, oh god.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on October 21, 2012, 11:48:57 PM
See you two in four years when you come back to edit these posts so futuremen won't know you once supported revisionist history.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 21, 2012, 11:50:35 PM
Not all, but certainly most.
Don't know if that's fair to say, given that at least among the lawmakers, there was enough support to abolish slavery.

But you seem to be acting like we don't even need to attempt to be aware of cultural assumptions we may be making. You're looking at a first-century text from an entirely different culture than ours and assuming we can instantly apply those words to the modern issue of sexual orientation, a concept that did not exist in the public consciousness until at least the mid-1800s.
Yes, I'm operating under the presupposition that there are principles to be found in the Bible independent of time.  Maybe we can both even agree on that part?  It just comes down to which principles; and reading the Bible, I don't and can't see any distinctions that would sufficiently change the principle in regards to homosexual behavior.  I can acknowledge that there is overlap between a lot of those other things that are not good.  I just don't believe that the absence of that overlap makes a difference.

As I think of it, another question would be why would he specifically mention homosexuality in addition to all those things without a reason.  So when the promiscuity and kidnapping is guy-on-guy, it's bad, but he says nothing about the rape, debauchery, and trafficking when it's hetero?  Seems like he's either singling out homosexuality as its own category; or if it's meant to be included as part of a larger context, then he's mentioning it as an especially bad variant of these other activities.  Neither of these seems to regard homosexuality positively.  But surely there is a reason it's brought up.  More of an aside that occurred to me now, but it's kind of a big aside.

We cannot read the Bible without bias and subjectivity. We can either attempt to understand the lens we're looking through, and how it differs from the lens the original audience had, or we can pretend we aren't looking through a lens.
This argument reminds me quite a bit of typical postmodernism, except it doesn't quite put the doubt on Scripture as explicitly, even though it looks like it really, really wants to.  The point I'm driving at here is that there are going to be lenses but that doesn't excuse us from doing our best to proclaim the Word of God as if it's the Word of God (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%204:11&version=ESV).  And of course this isn't because we're as great as all that; it's because God gives us what we need to interpret rightly.

Culture is not the standard for reading Scripture.  Scripture is the standard for reading culture.  You can say it's impossible to read Scripture objectively, but at some point you're going to have to have some faith that there is such a thing as a correct reading of the Bible, or else it's as good as useless.  Who do you trust as an arbiter, and if not Scripture, then why God?

Sorry if I come off as a too vehement here.

It looks a lot like Paul is teaching people to break the least of the commandments. Circumcision was not a suggestion: "The Lord spoke to Moses: “Tell the Israelites, ‘When a woman produces offspring and bears a male child, [...o]n the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin must be circumcised.'"" (Leviticus 12:1-3)

So if Jesus was literally saying that every one of the 613 laws is binding until the end of time, then Paul was a false prophet -- and then suddenly we don't have any New Testament prooftexts against homosexuality, just Leviticus.
Even assuming this, I would think you're going to give more weight to God's Son than the false prophet.  And keep in mind that along with many prooftexts against homosexuality, so too would go the passages that you claim are abrogating the Old Testament.  Leviticus would be more than enough (which, hey, I believe it already is enough).  But there isn't a contradiction; circumcision is a part of the law that's affected by Jesus' coming; we still have a way to symbolize the covenant - it just happens to be baptism now.

The passage I keep coming back to in figuring this out is Romans 13. "Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Yet you're ignoring a good portion of the commandments here.  You have to harmonize this somehow, but even Paul, in this passage, is still viewing the commandments as valid.  These verses are not saying "you're off the hook for every commandment except these"; or "if it doesn't look to you like a commandment does this, it's not valid"; they're saying "this is the big one, and how this is achieved is broken down and explained by the other ones."

This is not an argument that homosexuality is wrong; this is an argument that sin is wrong, with the sinfulness of homosexuality taken as a given.
Right, and the argument was made mostly in response to an article describing two hypothetical outcomes, which left out the actual implications of "if I'm wrong."  Probably didn't clarify that enough, sorry.

The religious authorities of the day certainly did add unnecessary baggage to a lot of the law, but the fact remains that the law said that doing any work whatsoever on the Sabbath, including picking up sticks, was punishable by death. Jesus did work on the Sabbath, and led his disciples to do the same, in picking wheat to eat. Going strictly by the letter of the law, I don't see how the Pharisees' accusation was incorrect -- when the Israelites were getting manna in the desert, they weren't allowed to pick up manna on the Sabbath (which would have been as much or less work than picking grain) -- if they wanted to eat on the Sabbath, they had to plan ahead on Friday.
This goes back to the matter of preserving life on the Sabbath - just like no one was put to death for rescuing an animal then.  God provided double the manna for the Israelites before the Sabbath so they would be able to still eat.  There had been no manna for Jesus and the disciples, but they still had to eat.  Again, the Pharisees were corrupting the Sabbath into a heavy yoke.

Every single man, woman, child, and animal in the town? Really?
If that's what God tells you to do, absolutely.  How (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/12/is-god-a-moral-monster/)ever (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/03/is-god-a-moral-moster/)...

There's a massive history, to be sure, but it's not an unbroken chain. For example, conservative evangelical Christianity generally didn't have a problem with abortion until the early-to-mid-1980s (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/).
http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/10/the-early-church-on-abortion-2/

There is an enormous difference between "The Jews who killed Jesus" and "The Jews, who killed Jesus". Paul was not saying all Jews killed Jesus, he was making a reference to the ones who did. Similarly, 2012!Paul could be saying all books are evil, or he could be talking about a subset of evil books, and Romans 1 could either be saying all homoerotic acts are inherently idolatrous and/or promiscuous, or could instead be decrying a specific subset of idolatrous/promiscuous homoerotic acts, with the morality of homoerotic acts in general not being addressed. Can we say for sure which one he was going for?
Again, given other passages which all mention them in different ways, and Leviticus (of which, keep in mind, we apparently disagree on the validity), and Jesus basically saying "this is what marriage is," I would say it's a fairly clear matter.  Not that either of us is going to be able to agree on this issue if a few different, broader ones weren't first resolved.

But just because rape isn't wrong for the reasons it was wrong in Moses' time doesn't mean it's not wrong. I seem to remember something about loving your neighbor as yourself. Having sex with someone without their consent is a pretty massive violation of that law.
But surely "love" is subject to the same cultural lenses that "homosexuals" is.  Why are you so willing to take "love" at face value without questioning the cultural context?  Absalom loved his sister and raped her, and it's not said that he didn't love her until afterward.  So maybe consent isn't always the huge issue that you think it is.  Maybe you're reading through the bias of a culture where we make a bigger deal out of consent than God does.  (I should hope it would be obvious that I don't actually think this)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 22, 2012, 01:01:31 AM
Yes, I'm operating under the presupposition that there are principles to be found in the Bible independent of time.  Maybe we can both even agree on that part? 
Principles, yes. But finding those principles isn't always as simple as reading the Bible as though it was written yesterday.

It just comes down to which principles; and reading the Bible, I don't and can't see any distinctions that would sufficiently change the principle in regards to homosexual behavior.  I can acknowledge that there is overlap between a lot of those other things that are not good.  I just don't believe that the absence of that overlap makes a difference.
You really don't see any meaningful difference between first-century same-sex relations -- invariably exploitative, subjugating, and usually pederastic -- and a modern-day couple of two Christian adults in an equal romantic partnership who happen to be the same sex?

Also, "don't and can't" was an interesting word choice there.

As I think of it, another question would be why would he specifically mention homosexuality in addition to all those things without a reason.  So when the promiscuity and kidnapping is guy-on-guy, it's bad, but he says nothing about the rape, debauchery, and trafficking when it's hetero?  Seems like he's either singling out homosexuality as its own category; or if it's meant to be included as part of a larger context, then he's mentioning it as an especially bad variant of these other activities.  Neither of these seems to regard homosexuality positively.  But surely there is a reason it's brought up.  More of an aside that occurred to me now, but it's kind of a big aside.
But you could use that logic against any specific mention of sin. The only times that rape is explicitly described as sinful in the Bible, it's man-on-woman. Does that mean woman-on-man, man-on-man, or woman-on-woman rape aren't wrong? When the Bible says lying is wrong, is that saying that other sins involving words aren't bad? Any time someone says something is wrong, you can say "Why say x is wrong without saying y is wrong?" You can't expect every list of sins to include every possible sin, especially if there's one sin in particular that was actually happening a lot more often than the others when that list was written -- which requires examining the cultural context.

This argument reminds me quite a bit of typical postmodernism, except it doesn't quite put the doubt on Scripture as explicitly, even though it looks like it really, really wants to.  The point I'm driving at here is that there are going to be lenses but that doesn't excuse us from doing our best to proclaim the Word of God as if it's the Word of God (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%204:11&version=ESV).  And of course this isn't because we're as great as all that; it's because God gives us what we need to interpret rightly.
If the standard is that God gives us what we need to interpret, then how do you know I'm interpreting it wrong and you're interpreting it right? That's what sounds like postmodernism to me (although in practice, it's whichever Christian groups have the power get to make the rules).

Culture is not the standard for reading Scripture.  Scripture is the standard for reading culture.  You can say it's impossible to read Scripture objectively, but at some point you're going to have to have some faith that there is such a thing as a correct reading of the Bible, or else it's as good as useless.  Who do you trust as an arbiter, and if not Scripture, then why God?
God could have just written a clear, concise book of laws and logical flowcharts that unambiguously lays out everything in perfectly timeless terms. But that's not what he did. He gave us stories. And those stories are inextricably interwoven with the cultures they occurred in. We need to understand where the Bible came from, and not simply act like it just all suddenly appeared one day. It would be very convenient if God had done it that way, but he very much did not. The way he did things is about the most opposite of that you could possibly get.

Even assuming this, I would think you're going to give more weight to God's Son than the false prophet.  And keep in mind that along with many prooftexts against homosexuality,
Not many. There's at most six or seven, counting three from Paul. Out of 31,000.

But there isn't a contradiction; circumcision is a part of the law that's affected by Jesus' coming; we still have a way to symbolize the covenant - it just happens to be baptism now.
Still, in your terms, how is that not a jot and tittle that's passing away?

God provided double the manna for the Israelites before the Sabbath so they would be able to still eat.  There had been no manna for Jesus and the disciples, but they still had to eat.  Again, the Pharisees were corrupting the Sabbath into a heavy yoke.
So why didn't Jesus just plan ahead and get more food on Friday? There was no exception in the Old Testament for "Oops, I forgot to get extra food yesterday, I'll just go get some today." No. Death. Remember Uzzah (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=1+chronicles+13:6-13:13&version=nrsvae) (different command, same idea)?

But surely "love" is subject to the same cultural lenses that "homosexuals" is.  Why are you so willing to take "love" at face value without questioning the cultural context?  Absalom loved his sister and raped her, and it's not said that he didn't love her until afterward.  So maybe consent isn't always the huge issue that you think it is.  Maybe you're reading through the bias of a culture where we make a bigger deal out of consent than God does.  (I should hope it would be obvious that I don't actually think this)
Love is sacrifice. Love is putting the wants and needs of others above your own. Love is Jesus: the creator and potentate of existence washing feet. That, I believe, is a timeless principle.

If you want to talk romantic love, though, yeah, that's different than it was when the Bible was written. Our modern western concept of heteronormative romantic love basically takes the medieval development of courtly love and combines it with varying amounts of feminism (first-, second-, third-, or fourth-wave), within the framework of a society rooted in patriarchy.

And yes, the concept of consent as we know it today was pretty much non-existent in Bible times. That is exactly why we cannot say for certain that Paul was condemning consensual same-sex relationships -- we don't know that he could have even conceived of such a thing existing.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 22, 2012, 01:42:19 AM
See you two in four years when you come back to edit these posts so futuremen won't know you once supported revisionist history.

lol it's not like I completely rewrote the post, I just put a disclaimer at the bottom.

Also, I've read Koopaslaya's post and I've typed up a rebuttal that I'll probably post sometime tomorrow. Everyone owes it to him to read his post whether you agree with him or not because he worked [darn] hard on it.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on October 22, 2012, 02:05:49 AM
Also, I've read Koopaslaya's post and I've typed up a rebuttal that I'll probably post sometime tomorrow. Everyone owes it to him to read his post whether you agree with him or not because he worked [darn] hard on it.

I replied to it! But sadly, I got the last post on the page before the theology came back.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 23, 2012, 01:21:40 AM
My views have slowly shifted (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=6670.msg360807#msg360807) over time, as well (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=9659.msg442528#msg442528). (Though I still stand by most (if not all) of what I said in the latter post I linked; I think it had an over all good message. However, the former post I linked makes me cringe.)

I think it's safe to say Turtlekid and CrossEyed inherently disagree and are not going to convince the other to change their standpoint.

I read Koopaslaya's post, and even responded. I commend him for the detail, time, and effort he put into it. I didn't directly address the flaws I found in his argument because I felt others had already adequately pointed them out. I'm still awaiting a response from him regarding my questions.

Re: CrossEyed's post (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg602874#msg602874) on asexuality and marriage: Thanks for your insight! I'm inclined to agree with everything you said regarding the matter. Though, I'm sure some people may not be so open-minded about it, unfortunately.

(you guys get the coolest abbreviated name)
Haha, yes! XD

This is my first post in this thread-- a topic that I cared little about, and thus did not express an opinion.
Actually (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg552647#msg552647), that's (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg552778#msg552778) not (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg552790#msg552790) true (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12100.msg552808#msg552808). ;P  Thanks for your response, though.

Re: Sabbath
Technically—TECHNICALLY—the day of the Sabbath never changed; it was always the seventh day of the week (specifically what we would call Friday evening to Saturday evening). I never recall that being changed anywhere in scripture, and all reasoning I've seen as to why it was changed to Sunday seems rather weak and arbitrary to me.
If one were to interpret scripture literally, technically Christians would be getting it wrong. If one were to take a more open approach to the matter, and look at the underlying intent and message of the command ("spirit of the law")—spend a day devoted to God and free from work—one could reason that the day of the week doesn't actually matter. (Really we should be devoting more than just a day to God, but you get the idea.) But if you want to take interpretation literally and to the letter of the law, we kind of fail there.

But this is getting off topic, so...

Is it just me, or does sexual not look like a word anymore?
I was thinking that too. What's funny is I used to censor that word. (Actually, it's taken a lot of intentional effort not to censor typing it because I'm naturally inclined to avoid saying that word. I figured I needed to get over it if I wanted to be taken seriously.) Hooray for idiosyncrasies!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on October 23, 2012, 08:26:49 PM
Markio and LD, you both absolutely SICKEN me. [...] I detest the world we live in, and it's people like you who think it's okay to compromise morals who help add to what is wrong with it.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJPFTN.gif&hash=e8c358c896d457af5fc6175216953426)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 23, 2012, 08:41:54 PM
Troll much?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on October 23, 2012, 08:51:40 PM
Who's trolling what now?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 23, 2012, 08:53:51 PM
trolling, wats that
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on October 23, 2012, 08:59:13 PM
Not trolling, but teasing. Ribbing. I post with a smile, not a frown. It's heartening to look at the old threads and see how people have changed in only a few years. The same is happening on the grander scale. That's why bigots like Koopaslaya will eventually lose.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on October 23, 2012, 09:02:37 PM
How do you know we-- err, they, aren't merely infiltrating your ranks?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 23, 2012, 09:25:48 PM
It was kind of hard to tell your intent just by you quoting me and responding with an image. Revised response: >:P

I don't recall Koopaslaya posting anything bigoted in this thread. Someone else, maybe...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 23, 2012, 09:35:43 PM
Koopaslaya does not believe that gay couples are entitled to the same benefits afforded to straight couples. His argument, in Lizard Dude's mind, is based on an arbitrary technicality (gays can't pop out a kid). Bigots think other people are inferior without a well-founded reason; hence, Koopaslaya is a bigot.

In Koopaslaya's defense, he doesn't think his position is unfounded, but his proposal, for whatever reason, only denies benefits to gay couples; it does not deny benefits to infertile straight couples and straight couples who don't want to be parents. I should also like to point out that marriage as it's defined today primarily acts as a legal recognition of two people agreeing to pool their resources and doesn't have anything to do with making babies (he said that quite a bit in his "mature" post). We have plenty of unmarried people doing that already, thank you. Although I'm not opposed to granting benefits to couples with children, I also recognize, as does the government, that an individual has a right to a legal say in matters concerning their partner regardless of whether they're parents. Why are gays barred from the same opportunity? Sorry to say this, but I agree with Lizard Dude.

Not because I don't want to agree with LD, mind you, but because bigot is a very harsh term.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 23, 2012, 10:46:36 PM
I was wondering if the all-caps "sicken" post would ever come up.  It stayed with me for quite awhile after that.  Although I'm impressed with my 14-year-old self's posts on that page: snooty, yes, but somewhat consistent with how I currently see the issue.  And to think I was gay the whole time! 9_9
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Sapphira on October 23, 2012, 11:05:27 PM
Allow me to apologize for my remarks (and tone?) from the aforementioned post; my 17-year-old self was rather harsh, naive and closed-minded. And maybe bigoted? I don't think I ever intended to emotionally scar anyone, if I did. I'm sorry.

To be fair, I did try to clarify (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=6670.msg360810#msg360810) my response. But that still doesn't really excuse my choice of words.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on October 23, 2012, 11:21:06 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure I managed to keep quiet here about this matter until quite recently, but even I have changed my opinion over the years to some extent. My 14-year-old self was once spontaneously interrogated by one of my larger, more sports-inclined peers concerning my opinions on homosexuality in general. This is what I said: "I think it's abnormal and I will have nothing to do with it." Harsh words, although there were a lot of things pressuring me into a very unsympathetic position. I still flinch when I think of the response to my intentionally unemotional answer, "All right! Ian's cool."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 23, 2012, 11:32:48 PM
It's in the past!  We were young and reckless!  We've all matured and have posted newer, updated reflections on how we think about these things.  I said I "didn't like homosexuals" in that old thread, which is the most groan-inducing case of dramatic irony I have ever witnessed on the internet.

The way I see it, our previous comments are excused when we say something different in the future.  Kind of like how Mr. Darcy is such a romantic figure despite his role at the beginning of Pride and Prejudice, or how all my posts now invoke this image since I've come out:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m1047zs5wv1rq0o4ko1_400.jpg&hash=f38aa059b853f295a461f51b2df99308)
Also, I probably enjoyed being grouped together with Lizard Dude in Sapphira's chastisement...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 23, 2012, 11:41:18 PM
The way I see it, our previous comments are excused when we say something different in the future.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F30%2Ftimestopics%2Fmitt-romney%2Fmitt-romney-sfSpan.jpg&hash=8f4e7ea26af800de0f64542c883e7aea)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 23, 2012, 11:51:41 PM
...Touche.  Now I'm sorry for all the questionable things I once said.  It's disturbing how so many examples immediately jump into my mind.

Although I hope you don't think I'm changing my opinions in order to win the favor of more TMK'ers!  That would be waaay too shallow and pathetic and accurate.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on October 24, 2012, 12:04:29 AM
Good grief. Nobody is chained to their opinions when they put them into words, even politicians. If opinions change from experience, new evidence, or some sort of enlightenment, then the change should be accepted as rational. When opinions change for no identifiable reason, fallacious reason, or reasons too petty to put into words, that's when you can smirk and be suspicious.

I'm not saying that we should clear the slate of all past bigotry, I'm saying that the reasons that propped up that bigotry should be explored, at least by the person who once made that stake.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on October 24, 2012, 05:54:10 AM
Quoting for Post of the Year nomination.

The way I see it, our previous comments are excused when we say something different in the future.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F08%2F30%2Ftimestopics%2Fmitt-romney%2Fmitt-romney-sfSpan.jpg&hash=8f4e7ea26af800de0f64542c883e7aea)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 24, 2012, 09:32:41 AM
Good grief. Nobody is chained to their opinions when they put them into words, even politicians. If opinions change from experience, new evidence, or some sort of enlightenment, then the change should be accepted as rational.

This would have been a good response image:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frestoringtruthiness.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FPresident-Obama-Endorses-Same-Sex-Marriage-And-Proves-Evolution-In-One-Day.jpg&hash=2a23923261874543114b8a9cddecb8d3)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Koopaslaya on October 24, 2012, 09:40:43 AM
Hey, guys. Sorry I haven't responded in a while. Midterms are this week, and I've ben in over my head with papers and the like. When things settle down, I hope to jump back in.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on October 24, 2012, 01:51:12 PM
The way I see it, our previous comments are excused when we say something different in the future. 

Excused, maybe not. A man's past is the only thing his peers can use to gauge his character... but if people change does that mean people cease to be who they were and become someone new? You are who you are today, not who you were last year? I think so.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 24, 2012, 03:13:26 PM
Our previous statements are "updated?"  "Rendered obsolete when we admit to having changed our minds since then?"  "Discarded when one's actions demonstrate a different perspective on the issue?"  Perhaps "excused" was simply to inaccurate.  However, by recognizing that my original statement was flawed, wouldn't this post demonstrate that my previous statement is being updated?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Turtlekid1 on October 26, 2012, 01:18:17 PM
My excuse is similar to Koopaslaya's in terms of category if not intensity.  Can't say I'm under as much stress as him, but yeah, kind of foolish of me to start debating over fall break when I'd be back doing things at school before long.  Been feeling guilty over what seems like a cop-out, so sorry for lack of response lately.  Probably won't be able to continue this afterwards, but I did want to present a couple thoughts to clarify my position - to be fair, I'm not always the best at articulating it.

How I view the relationship between the Old and New Covenants is decided by how I view Jesus' teaching on the law, with the idea that certain aspects of the law (the ceremonies and rituals, and things that deal with cleanliness) are pointing toward what is later fully explained in the New Testament.  Jesus' teaching on cleanliness does not repeal the need to be clean - the law has not passed away, not anymore than Mario passes away when he gets a Fire Flower - but he does change what it means to be clean and unclean (this, along with Peter's vision in Acts, which tells us that Jesus has made the unclean foods clean).  What are still counted as unclean are things like murder, theft, sexual immorality... etc.  In the interest of taking things in their historical context, what one has to realize here is that Jesus is referring to the law of Moses for His definitions of all these things (as is Paul, really - remember, he was steeped in the law his whole life and knew and referenced it constantly).  Keep in mind who He's speaking to, and their background studying the law.  Specifically relating to this issue, it's easy to say that what He means here is ambiguous now, but His audience knew exactly what behaviors He referred to with the shorthand of "sexual immorality."  The biggest thing to take away from this, of course, is that no one can just "be cleaner."  That's where Christ comes in.  But just because He frees us from sin does not mean that there is no longer such a thing as a sinful action.

That is to say, the moral law is just as present now as ever (http://americanvision.org/3112/shellfish-logic-and-the-defense-of-homosexual-marriage/), predating and persisting through every covenant.  The difference comes from our reason to obey it.

Admittedly, I don't have every single answer ever.  Like everyone else in the world, there's always room for me to read more.  Unfortunately, I'm not so great about reading on this sort of thing during the school year.  But thank you for the discussion, I did appreciate the opportunity to talk about this a bit.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on October 26, 2012, 10:10:35 PM
I found this interesting video on YouTube, thought it was relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRt04pElH4s
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Red Lewd Uganda on October 29, 2012, 12:02:18 AM
Good grief. Nobody is chained to their opinions when they put them into words, even politicians. If opinions change from experience, new evidence, or some sort of enlightenment, then the change should be accepted as rational. When opinions change for no identifiable reason, fallacious reason, or reasons too petty to put into words, that's when you can smirk and be suspicious.

I'm not saying that we should clear the slate of all past bigotry, I'm saying that the reasons that propped up that bigotry should be explored, at least by the person who once made that stake.

At the risk of a fallacious appeal to authority (You be the judge.):

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Suffix on October 29, 2012, 01:21:33 AM
Nice quote! Who said that? EDIT: Thomas Jefferson, eh? I wonder if I had read that in the past, and then forgot it. Anyways, I'm glad to see my own thoughts put so eloquently.

And appeal to authority, ha! You're free to argue with or back whoever you please, regardless of whatever underused privileges he or she may have. Frankly, I was hoping to see somebody strike back at my boat-shaking.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Red Lewd Uganda on October 29, 2012, 05:00:00 PM
In the 'marketplace of ideas':

'If there be any among us who would wish to [see things differently], let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.'

I also share his love of macaroni and cheese.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on October 30, 2012, 06:51:37 PM
I apologize in advance for my post being kind of disorganized.

How I view the relationship between the Old and New Covenants is decided by how I view Jesus' teaching on the law, with the idea that certain aspects of the law (the ceremonies and rituals, and things that deal with cleanliness) are pointing toward what is later fully explained in the New Testament.  Jesus' teaching on cleanliness does not repeal the need to be clean - the law has not passed away, not anymore than Mario passes away when he gets a Fire Flower - but he does change what it means to be clean and unclean (this, along with Peter's vision in Acts, which tells us that Jesus has made the unclean foods clean).  What are still counted as unclean are things like murder, theft, sexual immorality... etc.  In the interest of taking things in their historical context, what one has to realize here is that Jesus is referring to the law of Moses for His definitions of all these things (as is Paul, really - remember, he was steeped in the law his whole life and knew and referenced it constantly).  Keep in mind who He's speaking to, and their background studying the law.  Specifically relating to this issue, it's easy to say that what He means here is ambiguous now, but His audience knew exactly what behaviors He referred to with the shorthand of "sexual immorality."  The biggest thing to take away from this, of course, is that no one can just "be cleaner."  That's where Christ comes in.  But just because He frees us from sin does not mean that there is no longer such a thing as a sinful action.

That is to say, the moral law is just as present now as ever (http://americanvision.org/3112/shellfish-logic-and-the-defense-of-homosexual-marriage/), predating and persisting through every covenant.  The difference comes from our reason to obey it.
I think it's hard to draw lines between what's the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law". There's no clear indication in the OT that they're split up like that (they're certainly not delineated in the text -- moral-sounding stuff and ceremonial-sounding stuff are often mixed together in the same chapters).

So here's Matthew 5:17-19.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

But then we have circumcision and feasts and cleanliness codes and dietary rules and the Sabbath being thrown out by Paul (and some of it also being thrown out by Jesus personally). Some questions here:

- When Jesus says "these commands", is he referring to the 613 rules of the Torah, or is he referring to the commands that he's giving at that moment?
- When he says "until everything takes place" (also translated "until everything is accomplished / fulfilled / comes to pass), is he talking end-of-the-world stuff, or could he be referring to the same thing as when he said "It is finished!" on the cross? Could that be the moment where "everything is fulfilled"?

I'm not sure where I come down on this exactly. Clearly the whole law is no longer binding on us, unless Paul (and Luke and/or Peter (and also Jesus)) were wrong (incidentally, though, we should remember that the point of the story in Acts 10 and 11 is a lot bigger than shrimp (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/05/28/slavery-seafood-sexuality-and-the-southern-bible/)). With that in mind, how do we interpret "not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place"? The most obvious reading would be "all 613 rules of the Torah will be in effect until the end of time," but clearly that's not the case, so one of the assumptions in there has to be wrong.

I lean toward the belief that the specific code of law laid out in the Old Testament was "fulfilled" with Jesus' death, and it is no longer binding on us. This does not mean that everything it outlawed is now okay.

Quote from: "Shellfish Logic and the Defense of Homosexual Marriage"
Leviticus 19—between the anti-homosexual passages of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—prohibits stealing and lying, oppressing neighbors and robbing them, withholding wages from a laborer, cursing the deaf and tripping the blind, showing partiality in judicial matters, slandering, and taking vengeance. Leviticus 20 repeats prohibitions against child sacrifice, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Are we to conclude, using shellfish logic, that these laws no longer apply today because they are found in the Holiness Code?

The logic here is not "The Old Testament law is fulfilled and no longer binding on us; therefore, homosexuality must be good now, because it was wrong back then and now everything is the opposite!" The logic is "The prohibition against homosexuality in the Old Testament is no longer binding. Are there other reasons it should be immoral? If not, then it's okay." There are plenty of reasons that stealing, lying, and sacrificing children are wrong. Just because the law portion of the first five books of the Old Testament is no longer telling me not to murder people doesn't mean that I can ignore the rest of the Bible and my conscience telling me murder is wrong anyway.

(Sidenote (though I've mentioned it before), Leviticus 19 also forbids landowners from harvesting their fields to the edges, for the benefit of the poor, and demands that aliens and sojourners in the land not be discriminated against and be treated the same as citizens. Why, among those who support using the government to outlaw homosexuality, is there so little support for using the government to make the rich help the poor, and such strict immigration policies?)

However, even if specific parts of the law (rather than the principles behind them) are still binding on us, Leviticus 18 says that it is about "uncleanness". Again, this does not mean everything in there is okay now. Something can be both unclean and immoral, like sacrificing children to Molech. But if something is just unclean (by Levitical standards) without being immoral (which could be reiterated in other parts of scripture, or could be apparent through observation), then does it still apply in the new covenant?

Admittedly, I don't have every single answer ever.  Like everyone else in the world, there's always room for me to read more.  Unfortunately, I'm not so great about reading on this sort of thing during the school year.  But thank you for the discussion, I did appreciate the opportunity to talk about this a bit.
Same here. I always enjoy monopolizing a few pages with you.



I found this interesting video on YouTube, thought it was relevant.
I've always found these cases really interesting.

Incidentally, could that be considered a legitimate reason for divorce under strict biblical standards?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: TheMightyThor on October 31, 2012, 10:32:30 PM
Holy crap, Lizard Dude, I just read a bit from the thread you linked earlier.

That's because the Senate is terribly afraid of offending the weirdo gays. The gays want to make this a civil rights issue, comparing themselves to blacks. How dare they compare themselves to people as respectable as blacks? They don't know how sickening it is to think of 2 men or 2 women married. It's just wrong. There's a reason why Adam & Eve were a man and a woman. Because that's how it's supposed to be in marrige. The gay protesters nagged at the senate to not say yes to the ban like any gay person does. Woe to the gay that asks me for support against the traditionalists...

I never said gays should change their ways. I'm just speaking my mind about their ignorance.

Look. Gay marraige is absolutely wrong. It says in the Bible that its wrong. God thinks its wrong. There's no " you just have to live with it". Besides, it wasn't Adam & Steve in the Garden of Eden. If everyone grew up being gay, then there would be less babies then ever before. Alot of people say that its an alternate life style, when they're wrong. All it is is sin.

I love how he/she uses the stupid "Adam and Steve" thing.
These quoted posts almost literally make me sick.
By the way, nintendofreak's favorite show is The O'Reilly Factor. Well, no wonder...
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on October 31, 2012, 11:33:00 PM
He's probably changed his views by now. That thread's almost a decade old. Most kids just regurgitate their parent's opinions until they're old enough to think for themselves (speaking from experience). I used all of his "arguments" and didn't think twice about how ridiculous they sounded.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: TheMightyThor on November 01, 2012, 11:01:40 AM
Nintendofreak happens to complain about "jon bashing", which seems to give the indication he's a sock for jon.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on November 06, 2012, 11:21:11 PM
In recent news, Maine, Maryland and Washington states have all legalized same-sex marriage by popular vote!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on November 07, 2012, 12:14:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLTZctTG6cE
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on November 07, 2012, 01:27:38 AM
I'm interested to see how it's going to get spun. In my experience, there's always some excuse for how it wasn't really legitimate. It used to be "Unelected judges are imposing gay marriage on us against our will! It should be decided in the legislature!" And then New York passed it through the legislature and then it was "These politicians aren't representing us! It should be put to a direct vote!" And now three (possibly four -- the results from Washington aren't in yet) states pass it through direct popular vote. What's gonna be the excuse now?

Also, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin is the first openly gay senator. Five years ago when she was in the House of Representatives, she removed gender identity protection from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to get enough votes for it to pass (http://www.transadvocate.com/enda-three-card-draw.htm). That's certainly more a reflection of pragmatism than it is transphobia, but it's still not great (especially if you're a trans* person who got fired).

Also also, Mary Gonzalez in the Texas state House of Representatives is the first openly pansexual elected official in the country.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: TheMightyThor on November 07, 2012, 03:38:31 PM
A Pansexual representative? In Texas?

The increasing legalization of gay marriage, as well as the increase in pansexual/gay senators, makes me genuinely feel like we're moving forward. It's interesting to look at how attitudes on sexuality have changed since the last decade. (I don't just mean those old posts from '04.) Good going.

Cross, don't worry. I'm sure Fox News is working on their article about how the Evil Secular Socialist Liberal Agenda™ got gay marriage legal in more states already.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on November 24, 2012, 01:30:26 AM
Here's an interesting video regarding homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a85Xdmk_WIA
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on November 24, 2012, 02:15:56 PM
I always wondered where that "naked guy raping soldiers in a public restroom" .gif came from.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on January 16, 2013, 06:44:41 PM
Three more pieces on Christianity and homosexuality that I found interesting:

The Gay Community and That One Time Jesus Called Me The N-Word (http://www.prodigalmagazine.com/jesus-called-me-the-n-word/)

Quote from: Sammy Adebiyi
Guess what the LGBTQA community in Toledo said when we asked them what they thought about Christians.

“We are hesitant to say anything because we are stereotyped a lot and we definitely don’t want to do that to ALL Christians.”

When I read that, I cried. I cried because their response confirmed that I’m such a hypocrite. I cried because when I looked at the gay community, I no longer saw a threat or an “issue” to debate. I saw people who felt hated by Jesus.


Wendell Berry expounds on gay marriage (http://www.abpnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/8130-wendell-berry-expounds-on-gay-marriage#.UPc8q_L5Rtk)

Quote from: Wendell Berry
One may find the sexual practices of homosexuals to be unattractive or displeasing and therefore unnatural, but anything that can be done in that line by homosexuals can be done and is done by heterosexuals. Do we need a legal remedy for this? Would conservative Christians like a small government bureau to inspect, approve and certify their sexual behavior? Would they like a colorful tattoo verifying government approval on the rumps of lawfully copulating parties?


On Christian Communion: Why is Killing Okay But Not Sexuality? (http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-christian-communion-why-is-killing.html)

Quote from: Richard Beck
And these two observations lead to my question: If we are okay with diversity on the issue of killing--overriding an explicit command at the heart of Jesus's Kingdom vision on a topic of enormous moral consequence--why won't we allow for a diversity of views within the Christian communion in regard to Paul's vice lists?

That is, if you are willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to pacifists or just war advocates why not to gay Christians?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Hello:) on January 29, 2013, 07:17:46 PM
 Related.  (http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1870919)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on January 31, 2013, 04:28:18 PM
Rage:  http://theweek.com/article/index/239515/will-tennessee-teachers-have-to-out-gay-students
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on January 31, 2013, 06:50:33 PM
To quote my re-tweet of the article: Wow, what an evil person.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on January 31, 2013, 07:19:20 PM
I love how unfitting that picture is.

"Now, which a' y'all little fellers is a ho-mo?"
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on February 07, 2013, 04:32:05 PM
Language warning. (http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/homophobia-funny-tweets1.jpg)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Insane Steve on February 07, 2013, 04:35:51 PM
The last time I looked at this thread, the split of votes was like 10/6/5/5/6 or something. Seeing it as it is now pleases me.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: bobbysq1337 on April 06, 2013, 01:56:51 PM
There are a lot less
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Ftheoatmeal-img%2Fcomics%2Fliterally%2F5_2.png&hash=a1315096c9a5f93aa6c4d9bb5aaf9e8c)
people.
source:http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on April 06, 2013, 08:59:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfYIjwhDjVE

I want to marry this video.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Lizard Dude on April 06, 2013, 11:46:36 PM
Video marriage won't be legal until 2188.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on April 07, 2013, 05:55:39 AM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.spreadshirt.com%2Fimage-server%2Fv1%2Fdesigns%2F3305021%2Cwidth%3D178%2Cheight%3D178%2FGRAY-PRIDE%21.png&hash=720e13dd8c1ebb251d9db06ad6ef518d)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on April 07, 2013, 07:27:12 AM
Saved.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on May 06, 2013, 10:01:55 PM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.okcimg.com%2Fblog%2Fgaystraight%2FSexPartnersAll.png&hash=2c83b31e79bf1bdc4b3ae2ce4b33dbf6)

Turns out gay people aren't any more promiscuous than straight people. (http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Fifth on May 07, 2013, 01:01:10 AM
That is one poorly formatted graph.  Why is it measuring people with X or fewer partners?  Why not just plot people with X partners?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on May 07, 2013, 02:18:49 PM
And what about double-dipping bisexual people?  Would they have twice as many partners? 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Markio on June 26, 2013, 04:44:53 PM
Today Prop 8 was struck down by the US Supreme Court.  Marriage is legal again for same-sex couples in California!

The Supreme Court also struck down DOMA.  I always think of "Burrito Supreme" from Taco Bell when I hear "Supreme Court."  And I visualize sour cream.  I haven't been to a Taco Bell in over a decade...  What was I talking about?  Oh yeah, gay marriage yes.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on June 26, 2013, 05:35:48 PM
All that talk of fast food has me hankering for Chick-fil-A.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: KoopaTrooper on June 26, 2013, 05:44:15 PM
Today Prop 8 was struck down by the US Supreme Court.  Marriage is legal again for same-sex couples in California!

The Supreme Court also struck down DOMA.  I always think of "Burrito Supreme" from Taco Bell when I hear "Supreme Court."  And I visualize sour cream.  I haven't been to a Taco Bell in over a decade...  What was I talking about?  Oh yeah, gay marriage yes.

(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUqjmbiT.gif&hash=800d1ee0206b3c15bb83a0b7cdf545cb)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Ninjap00 on June 26, 2013, 06:08:41 PM
.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Nintendoobsessed on June 27, 2013, 12:42:26 AM
I guess some form of social justice does still exist here.

-Gonna go drink some conservative tears-
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: PaperLuigi on June 27, 2013, 06:34:23 PM
You mean in America or the Fungi Forums? Because social justice here died when Weegee showed up.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on June 27, 2013, 06:39:51 PM
Just wait until I become President.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on June 27, 2013, 07:01:53 PM
Not just anyone can be president. You need friends in high places.

Yup. You need friends
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on June 27, 2013, 07:09:20 PM
ONCE I'M PRESIDENT I'LL HAVE PLENTY OF FRIENDS
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: bobbysq1337 on June 27, 2013, 07:19:15 PM
Prime minister*
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on June 27, 2013, 07:23:26 PM
Hell no. If Obama could be elected despite being born in the centre of the earth where the lizard-people dwell, so can I.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Tavros on June 28, 2013, 08:19:33 PM
Lizard Dude was present at Obama's birth?
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BriGuy92 on June 28, 2013, 10:29:41 PM
Just Obama? Pah! Ol' Lizard's seen 'em all!
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on June 28, 2013, 10:40:37 PM
LD personally circumcised Obama.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on June 29, 2013, 03:58:17 PM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F30bf2eab970a609eb95495143a874b87%2Ftumblr_mp5s4b4HgI1qg3zo8o1_500.jpg&hash=f46d276bf5a50b704052e08e7067860d)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on June 27, 2015, 12:11:25 AM
so hey, homophobia is over now you guys (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on June 27, 2015, 08:28:23 AM
Hope you enjoy signing your souls away and getting divorce after divorce as much as us straight people do. :P
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on June 27, 2015, 12:56:13 PM
Yeah, one part of me is psyched that there's a little less institutional bigotry in place, while the other part of me will be interested to see how the gay divorce rate pans out now that the forbidden-fruit aspect is gone.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Weegee on June 27, 2015, 03:31:54 PM
Custody battles will be endless.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on August 14, 2015, 02:23:01 PM
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVwe5yMj.png&hash=e5a613defe71a3db669fbec10ed2de0e)
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Luigison on August 14, 2015, 04:03:59 PM
Heh.  My wife and I share the same google/gmail account.  We find it convenient for keeping all our contacts, maps, etc together and synced. 
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: AbdullahFaatai on February 23, 2016, 05:26:34 PM
Leviticus 18:22

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Tavros on February 23, 2016, 08:35:20 PM
oh noooo
did you really think that was a good idea
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: BP on February 24, 2016, 01:34:11 AM
#trollin4jesus
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: Chocobo on March 18, 2016, 01:52:24 AM
Leviticus 18:22

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

I always thought this one was pretty obvious. Clearly, God meant that if you're going to have sex with a man, you treat him like a man, and have the manliest gay sex in the world.
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on March 18, 2016, 06:06:54 AM
There's actually one theory that it means "don't have sex with a man in a woman's bed"
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: The Chef on March 18, 2016, 09:49:17 AM
Maybe it just means "men don't have vaginas". :p
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: CrossEyed7 on March 18, 2016, 02:34:16 PM
*cis men
Title: Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Post by: ShadowBrain on March 20, 2016, 08:27:07 AM
Been a while since we've had a good ban around these parts.