same sex marriages

[midori]

Originally posted by Guest

Its your life, and your soul that will suffer. It appears you only look at the Bible as literature and not as God's word. You cannot disprove me any more than I can disprove you. Why can't you admit that?

 

I do, absolutely and freely, admit that neither of us can demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that our interpretation of the text in question is accurate. I have outlined where my understanding comes from -- you have yet to articulate yours, besides sputtering, "because God said so."

 

And if you didn't catch on before, that is why I feel your belief is ignorant. You cannot back up what you say, besides reverting to an Unquestionable Authority -- but you assume that your interpretation of that Authority (and you must bear in mind Guest that yours is only an interpretation, however much it appeals to you) is the right one. In short, you presume to speak for God -- not by explaining, but by saying "that's what God says, He said so right here, and while it's possible to interpret these words in different ways, I and my church/preacher are the ones who know the right way. And if you don't agree your soul will suffer."

 

Good grief. This is what gives Christianity a bad name.

 

You are mistaken to think that I don't respect your right to interpret the Bible in whatever way you see fit, and to live your life accordingly. Perhaps you only select every other line from every other chapter of the Old Testament to abide by. I couldn't care less. You could have half of your town or city in your church, and everyone in your church might agree to the interpretation of the Bible that you hold dear -- more power to you. As I said before, I have no problem with anything you choose to think, or anything you choose to do, so long as it affects you and only you.

 

My soul is fine. More than fine. But thanks for your (misguided) concern.

[midori]

Originally posted by moimeme

Did you read everything I posted? I grow very weary of Bible-abusers who slide away from the points I make when I point out their inaccuracy/illogic in blaspheming the Bible to support their anti-gay opinions. Clearly you can't rebut me so you're picking on Midori.

 

Not to dwell on the obvious moimeme but our Guest failed to convincingly rebut me as well as you.

[cdn]

That implies that homosexuality is a choice.

 

It's not. But acting on it is.

[midori]

Having heterosexual sex is also a choice. Driving a car is a choice. We make all kinds of choices that some people might deem to be immoral or unnatural (and yes, there are people who think that any sexual intercourse puts the soul in jeopardy -- monks, nuns and Shakers all pledge celibacy for that reason).

 

Bottom line: is it hurting you -- you, specifically -- in any way? Is it hurting innocent third parties in any way? No? Then what's the issue? Maybe you don't like it -- fine, don't participate. Maybe the ideology to which you subscribe doesn't condone it -- fine, again don't particpate. Does anyone else care what your ideology has to say about choices they are making? Guess what, probably not.

 

I am morally opposed to S.U.V.'s. I think they are a disgusting sign of thoughtless materialism taking precedence over environmental responsibility. HokeyReligions has heard my rants about S.U.V.s many times -- and she's going to go out and buy one anyway! Exercising her right to free thought and personal choice. To hell with what I think. She's right -- and bear in mind, as I think I pointed out earlier in this thread, I can easily make the case that HR driving an S.U.V. negatively affects me. Other people's sexual behaviors affect only themselves.

[cdn]

[quote

Having heterosexual sex is also a choice. Driving a car is a choice. We make all kinds of choices that some people might deem to be immoral or unnatural (and yes, there are people who think that any sexual intercourse puts the soul in jeopardy -- monks, nuns and Shakers all pledge celibacy for that reason).

 

Yes, exactly! An earlier post suggested that because homosexuality is not chosen, it must be accepted. This is a commonly used faulty syllogism: that if something is natural (in the sense that it occurs in nature), it must be right. In this case, I am not arguing for against the rightness of homosexuality or same-sex marriage, just pointing out that while urges or desires are not chosen, acting on those urges or desires is a conscious choice. And that the fact that something is not chosen does not in and of itself make it right. (By the way, I don't see driving a car as being in the same category, since I don't believe we are born with a predisposition to drive.)

 

Bottom line: is it hurting you -- you, specifically -- in any way? Is it hurting innocent third parties in any way? No? Then what's the issue? Maybe you don't like it -- fine, don't participate. Maybe the ideology to which you subscribe doesn't condone it -- fine, again don't particpate. Does anyone else care what your ideology has to say about choices they are making? Guess what, probably not.

 

You are making many assumptions about my ideology when in fact I've shared no details of it. The only comment I've made is that same sex marriages will have an economic impact on all of us. Perhaps someone with the actuarial data can fill in the details as to whom will be hurt and whom helped.

 

I am morally opposed to S.U.V.'s. I think they are a disgusting sign of thoughtless materialism taking precedence over environmental responsibility. HokeyReligions has heard my rants about S.U.V.s many times -- and she's going to go out and buy one anyway! Exercising her right to free thought and personal choice. To hell with what I think. She's right -- and bear in mind, as I think I pointed out earlier in this thread, I can easily make the case that HR driving an S.U.V. negatively affects me. Other people's sexual behaviors affect only themselves.

 

I am in total agreement with you except for the last line. Other people's sexual behaviors do affect us all. People with fewer partners and safer behavior cost society less than people with more partners and riskier behavior. The costs are human as well as financial. We are all inhabiting one world, sharing the same resources. Everything I do effects everyone else and vice versa. Does this mean behavior should be legislated? I'd say no.

[Georgeo]

Traditional marriage is a funny phrase. Since the first couple was not the same sex then why should an alternative lifestyle take over? Traditions of men would include thanksgiving, christmas, washing your hands before a meal, and drinking tea at a certain hour. Not destroying the main reason for a marriage with the same sex. What bond of union can come out of that since they can't share the same chromesomes with the production of a baby?

[midori]

Originally posted by cdn

You are making many assumptions about my ideology when in fact I've shared no details of it. The only comment I've made is that same sex marriages will have an economic impact on all of us. Perhaps someone with the actuarial data can fill in the details as to whom will be hurt and whom helped.

 

sorry cdn, I was using the general "you," not referring to you specifically. I could have made that clearer.

 

I am in total agreement with you except for the last line. Other people's sexual behaviors do affect us all. People with fewer partners and safer behavior cost society less than people with more partners and riskier behavior. The costs are human as well as financial. We are all inhabiting one world, sharing the same resources. Everything I do effects everyone else and vice versa. Does this mean behavior should be legislated? I'd say no.

 

Right, but the risks you're talking about (which I agree with) are no more inherent to homosexuals than they are to heterosexuals. You might point out the tendency of many gay men (especially pre-AIDS) to have many sexual partner,s and to engage a high level of sexual promiscuity; but if homosexuality were generally accepted by society, and cultural institutions like marriage were opened for gays to participate in, would there be a change? I don't know -- no one does -- but until the social conditions in which gays exist are the same as those of heterosexuals, it's impossible to make comparisons.

 

And no, I agree that not all behavior can be legislated, or should be. Otherwise I would be campaigning to have S.U.V.'s banned from the roads except by special license.

[Georgeo]

The only reason why there is a choice to have sex with the same sex is the devils work when he said no one would worship God(Our heavenly father) if we had a choice.

 

There has to be rules broken for someone not to serve God and this rule IS broken many times. It is unfortunate for these people who WILL in fact continue on with this course of having no real mate since they will not gain the gift of everlasting life, after the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ.

[midori]

Originally posted by Georgeo

The only reason why there is a choice to have sex with the same sex is the devils work when he said no one would worship God(Our heavenly father) if we had a choice.

 

There has to be rules broken for someone not to serve God and this rule IS broken many times. It is unfortunate for these people who WILL in fact continue on with this course of having no real mate since they will not gain the gift of everlasting life, after the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ.

 

there's one view ...