toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Mr.Razorblades]

Who do you think gave the Law to Moses?

Moses, or maybe some beggars he overheard.

 

[IXOYE]

Many responses, such as your own, are symptomatic of an isolation of God from part of man's life, which is very problematic for Christians who claim to hold Dominus Deus, that Christ is the Lord of their life and the God of all. It is a sequestering of God and it is unBiblical and unChristian.

(spoken to Christians: ) You don't agree to disagree on abortion or murder, so why do you agree to disagree on the sanctity of marriage?

:e4e:

Because this "sanctity of marriage" concept you have is what we call in the world of LOGIC a FALSE DILEMMA!!!!!!

Gay marriage will in no way interfere with a marriage in the Eyes of God.

It's pure hate mongering bigotry, any way you slice it.

 

[Town Heretic]

so are you in favor of same sex marriage?

What do you mean in by in favor? I ask because I wasn't ambiguous about contract, which is what marriage amounts to so far as the state has any control and authority. So you must mean something else by it. I'm in favor of the government not interfering with contract absent the set outs I noted. Else it's like asking a vegetarian if he's in favor of someone else enjoying a steak. Just not applicable as descriptives go, unless you ask the sort who think they have a right to enforce inequity within the compact. That wouldn't be me.

 

[bybee]

When God revealed to us that man is made for women and women for man and that they are joined to be one flesh (as is quite obvious even to non-Christians historically), was there a disclaimer? Marriage is merely the consequence of that eternal truth, there is no such thing as a neatly separated "civil marriage" and "sacred covenant marriage." Marriage is merely a reflection of that eternal truth, which holds everywhere.

:e4e:

There are tens of thousands of people all over the world whose definition of marriage comes from their Holy Scriptures, scriptures other than ours. Many people have very broad ideas about what constitutes a marriage commitment.
It is not my place to tell them that mine is the only valid definition.
I am a rather conservative christian person, married for almost 53 years to one person. This worked for me. I have five children, four of whom have been divorced. I hate divorce but I love my children.

 

[zippy2006]

I do not agree. Europe and US are secular pluralistic societies, the opinions of any church or any other religion have no special influence on the laws in such a society, nor should they.

But the opinions of the constituents do and should, which is the point. It's also unfortunate that you consider God's Word opinion.

I suspect I do hold to a more liberal conception of Christianity and the Bible than you do. I think those texts can be questioned and that Christianity can change and I don't necessarily think that a changing Christianity is something new, it has changed in many ways many times. Even the sacred texts change, there is progression of thought within scripture itself.

I disagree and I consider it problematic that someone could go through seminary and come out thinking that homosexuality is fine and dandy. :idunno:

Abortion and murder can be argued against on a secular basis.

Incidentally, so can the corruption of marriage. That is precisely why marriage has remained pure for our entire history. God's command is just common sense.

But let's be honest, people can give perfectly logical rebuttals of your arguments against murder and abortion. Morality doesn't map perfectly to logicality. Every moral judgment enforced by the law is precisely what you claim can't exist because of SoCaS. You think general moral intuition is a sound basis for law, but not religion? It falls apart all over.

In the end the question is not whether the churches or other religions should marry homosexuals, but whether the secular state that represents a pluralistic secular society can do it.

In the end it is a vote and we hope those voting for the moral option outweigh the others. The same goes for murder and abortion. The problem here is that you seem to be voting for the immoral option for some very odd reason. :think:

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Moses, or maybe some beggars he overheard.

I wasn't asking you. I was asking someone who chooses to call himself a Christian.

 

[zippy2006]

Natural Law doesn't have to require any more of a "guiding hand" than evolution does. Some believe God writes these instincts on some creature's heart and others see as a behavioural precept we figure out through reason. If you believe the latter, than you probably have no problem with same sex-marriage .

I agree with every bit of that except the last sentence. :e4e:

 

[IXOYE]

the purpose of marriage is to protect the child
and
the mother who takes care of it

It was to legislate the exchange of lands and familial partnerships in the early Church, 1600s - 500s. Who are you trying to kid? Marriage was and always will be a contract between two people. PERIOD. An offer is made, payment is made. Man made the offer, woman accepted woman received ring.

Just like I offer you a Tshirt that has Dirk Novitski's head shot on a dollar bill, and below it 3 quarters with Lebraun James head shot on them. You offer me $50USD, I accept and give you the shirt. That is a legal contract.

Gay marriage in no way would interfere with a sanctified marriage in the eyes of God. Which, btw, I don't find in scripture anywhere. :|

What the govt makes legal, doesn't affect what God sees as sanctified.

So it's NOT a real issue, it's just an excuse to show hate mongering, NOT serve someone, and other anti-christian acts.

Some of the folks in here, may enjoy the philosophy at www.godhatesfags.com its a well known Xian site on the topic. :|

 

[zippy2006]

There are tens of thousands of people all over the world whose definition of marriage comes from their Holy Scriptures, scriptures other than ours. Many people have very broad ideas about what constitutes a marriage commitment.
It is not my place to tell them that mine is the only valid definition.
I am a rather conservative christian person, married for almost 53 years to one person. This worked for me. I have five children, four of whom have been divorced. I hate divorce but I love my children.

So at what point do you cross over? Many religions believed in human sacrifice, would you consider it "your place to tell them that yours is the only valid definition"? What if the sacrifice was of others, including those close to you, etc.?

 

[chrysostom]

What do you mean in by in favor? I ask because I wasn't ambiguous about contract, which is what marriage amounts to so far as the state has any control and authority. So you must mean something else by it. I'm in favor of the government not interfering with contract absent the set outs I noted. Else it's like asking a vegetarian if he's in favor of someone else enjoying a steak. Just not applicable as descriptives go, unless you ask the sort who think they have a right to enforce inequity within the compact. That wouldn't be me.

maybe you didn't understand the question

do you think same sex marriage should be legal?

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

I wasn't asking you. I was asking someone who chooses to call himself a Christian.

I was just stating it because it's irrelevant who he heard it from. Natural law is a fairy tale.

 

[zippy2006]

I was just stating it because it's irrelevant who he heard it from. Natural law is a fairy tale.

It isn't, and you believe in natural law yourself. Gotta run, be back later :wave2:

 

[Buzzword]

I wasn't asking you. I was asking someone who chooses to call himself a Christian.

Given that the vast majority of the Pentateuch represents a people with a flawed understanding of God (that being, of an all-powerful infant-murdering barbarian), I don't think it's a stretch to call the Mosaic Law a product of that understanding.

When a person sees God through a dirty lens (as many on this thread have demonstrated), what they call "God" is not and cannot be what He actually is.

Thus we now know that He is NOT an all-powerufl infant-murdering barbarian as the ancient Hebrews believed.

God has made Himself more clear to us through Christ, and to cling to the old, flawed understanding destroys the purpose for Christ's entire ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection.

 

[IXOYE]

I wasn't asking you. I was asking someone who chooses to call himself a Christian.

What is a Xian?

What does it matter who calls himself one. The Anti Christ may call himself a Christian.


That word, "Christian" is an undefinable word anyway. Put 1000 "Xians" in a room, have them all write down the definition of Xian, and you will have 1010 different answers.

You don't even KNOW Jesus if you still sin, or at least that's what scripture says. Would that person be a Christian?

 

[chrysostom]

It was to legislate the exchange of lands and familial partnerships in the early Church, 1600s - 500s. Who are you trying to kid? Marriage was and always will be a contract between two people. PERIOD. An offer is made, payment is made. Man made the offer, woman accepted woman received ring.

Just like I offer you a Tshirt that has Dirk Novitski's head shot on a dollar bill, and below it 3 quarters with Lebraun James head shot on them. You offer me $50USD, I accept and give you the shirt. That is a legal contract.

Gay marriage in no way would interfere with a sanctified marriage in the eyes of God. Which, btw, I don't find in scripture anywhere. :|

What the govt makes legal, doesn't affect what God sees as sanctified.

So it's NOT a real issue, it's just an excuse to show hate mongering, NOT serve someone, and other anti-christian acts.

Some of the folks in here, may enjoy the philosophy at www.godhatesfags.com its a well known Xian site on the topic. :|

why should two people who choose to live together get any more benefits then the mother of two children who is now living alone because without knowing it she married a homosexual

 

[IXOYE]

It isn't, and you believe in natural law yourself. Gotta run, be back later :wave2:

Yes it is, NO it isn't, YES IT IS! NOOOOO IT ISN"T!!!!

I'm right, NO ME, NO ME DANGIT, BS I AM RIGHT....

If you can't substantiate a claim such as natural law, except from a whacky so cal philosophy teacher's view on it, then there is probably a liklihood it's made up.

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

It isn't, and you believe in natural law yourself. Gotta run, be back later :wave2:

Really? I wasn't aware that you knew something about me that I didn't know. Sarcasm aside, you're attempting to change the definitions of what is ascribed to natural law in that paper and to what a scientist might call natural laws.

 

[Quincy]

I agree with every bit of that except the last sentence. :e4e:

Well, for any two persons in love, I don't really see why natural law decided by reason would include only opposite sex marriage. Now if you believe God is the source of natural law than I can see you having a point.

In the end, whether homosexuals are born that way or made, two homosexuals can adopt a charge off the state, have a family and even work together to benefit the country like any other family. The only difference is they can't procreate :idunno: .

 

[IXOYE]

why should two people who choose to live together get any more benefits then the mother of two children who is now living alone because without knowing it she married a homosexual

Who said they should?

What a false dilemma this is. There would be no difference if a man left a wife for another man, than there would be if the man left her for another woman.

Man, will you show no moral grounds on how low you go to make up excuses for your NON-love emotions here?

 

[Selaphiel]

But the opinions of the constituents do and should, which is the point. It's also unfortunate that you consider God's Word opinion.

The opinion of the people do matter, that also means accepting it when it goes against your personal convictions.
And the second part is a very common strawman. I do not think God's Word is opinion, what I do think is that the Bible is not the unadulterated word of God, those are two very different things.

I disagree and I consider it problematic that someone could go through seminary and come out thinking that homosexuality is fine and dandy.

It is not like we just decided that it was ok. There are arguments and reasons behind those opinions. I do not think homosexuality is a violation of the natural order, in fact it is common in the natural order. Nor do I think that it has any negative consequences that can be isolated to homosexuality alone (as in opposed to their current situation in society)

Incidentally, so can the corruption of marriage. That is precisely why marriage has remained pure for our entire history. God's command is just common sense.

Opposing homosexuality is not common sense. The reason why marriage has remained as it was throughout the majority of history is because religion dominated society throughout the majority of history. Secular states have not existed that long and it is not as if everything changes on day 1, things takes time.

But let's be honest, people can give perfectly logical rebuttals of your arguments against murder and abortion. Morality doesn't map perfectly to logicality. Every moral judgment enforced by the law is precisely what you claim can't exist because of SoCaS. You think general moral intuition is a sound basis for law, but not religion? It falls apart all over.

Murder is a fundamental violation of the basic human rights that our society is built on.
I think you are misunderstanding me. Separation between church and state does not mean that they can't agree, it means that the opinion of the church or any other religion should have no special influence.

In the end it is a vote and we hope those voting for the moral option outweigh the others. The same goes for murder and abortion. The problem here is that you seem to be voting for the immoral option for some very odd reason.

There is a fundamental difference between murder and homosexuality. The latter is not a gross violation against another non-consenting person.

:e4e: