L
Linux
Guest
I guess you calling people fools is a virtue.
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
There is no empty space and virtual particles are real, they are not nothing, they are wave/particles, depending on conditions.
Nonesense. Prove it.
A true statement at last.
That’s right, they aren’t trying to hood wink a bunch of gullible heads full of mush by changing definitions so they can steal God out of their hearts. When I hear the out landish claims of these charletans I smell the smoke of Satan.
Linus2nd
B
BOSS10L
Guest
The point is that we can never know what caused the universe (most likely).
I also can’t disprove god’s existence any more than theists can prove he/she/it exists. But the burden of proof is not on me to disprove god exists. The onus is on theists because they’re the ones making the fantastical claims.
Like I said, I’m not anti-faith or anti-spirituality. Heck, believe it or not, my youngest son goes to a Jesuit middle/high school! He wants to believe. I see no reason for my ideals and bises to sway his decisions. I only wish he becomes a good person, and from what I’ve seen thus far, this school will do well by him.
I just believe people should be allowed to live their lives. Same-sex marriage does nothing to undermine the 13 wonderful years I’ve spent with my wife so far. People are born gay. They’re born transgendered. Has nothing to do with faith or religion. It’s biology, plain and simple. I can’t believe that the Jesus of the Bible would call it a sin and condemn people to an eternity in Hell for being who they are. And if he and God revealed themselves to all of us with those biases in place, I couldn’t abide either one of them. If God would condemn me for that, then he’s not a God I could ever worship or support.
I also can’t disprove god’s existence any more than theists can prove he/she/it exists. But the burden of proof is not on me to disprove god exists. The onus is on theists because they’re the ones making the fantastical claims.
Like I said, I’m not anti-faith or anti-spirituality. Heck, believe it or not, my youngest son goes to a Jesuit middle/high school! He wants to believe. I see no reason for my ideals and bises to sway his decisions. I only wish he becomes a good person, and from what I’ve seen thus far, this school will do well by him.
I just believe people should be allowed to live their lives. Same-sex marriage does nothing to undermine the 13 wonderful years I’ve spent with my wife so far. People are born gay. They’re born transgendered. Has nothing to do with faith or religion. It’s biology, plain and simple. I can’t believe that the Jesus of the Bible would call it a sin and condemn people to an eternity in Hell for being who they are. And if he and God revealed themselves to all of us with those biases in place, I couldn’t abide either one of them. If God would condemn me for that, then he’s not a God I could ever worship or support.
L
Linux
Guest
Why would God create a man with attractions that impede his nature as a man? Yeah and some people are born with no arms or legs, maybe that’s their identity too.
If religion has no monopoly on human sexuality then neither do you. The idea that living a homosexual life is “being who they were born to be” is your belief and is as much a belief as any other.
And i agree with you, that the state should not legislate in favor of some particular belief over others if it cannot be proven on secular grounds that a particular belief and its expression causes harm to society. Thus i think people who embrace the gay identity should be aloud to express it publicly. However the gay identity should not be forced on to people either. The idea that it is natural or moral should not enter into the legal definition of homosexuality or gay rights anymore than the claim that it is unnatural or immoral. Its a belief and a lifestyle choice.
What about all the people who chose not to live a gay lifestyle because they value their nature as men and women? Who are you to tell them they are wrong or that they ought to live gay?
Also, i assume that people who live a gay lifestyle truly believe its okay, so why would they go to hell for what they don’t know to be wrong?
J
johnweeder
Guest
Some people are also born with genetic predisposition to sociopathic and pedophilic tendencies.
I accept that existing as created would not in my mind be a sin (but I cannot know God’s mind).
I also cannot know how God will judge the sociopath who commits murder or the man who rapes a child (perhaps they could not control themselves). I do believe tho that to at least an extent someone must take responsibility for their actions. This same reasoning would, as I understand it, also apply to the catholic church’s teachings on homosexuality. I think a lot of people paraphrase this as “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I don’t know if I accept that characterization. I don’t know what God thinks on the matter. I make an observation.
On a purely human level, I also do not accept that these actions are maybe merely choices between consenting adults that do not affect me. For example, promiscuity, whether hetero- or homo-, is the driving factor in the propagation of STD’s. This effects me whether by costing me money, tainting the blood supply or by breeding super-bugs while attempting to treat patients with compromised immune systems.
Note that I am overweight. Perhaps I have a genetic predisposition to it. Regardless, I feel myself responsible for the effects of this on society (and there are effects…). God gave me a body to be a steward of. Am I doing a good job?
J
johnweeder
Guest
Purely from a secular perspective I offer this as on example of a public harm.
The common law concept of marriage and those institutions arising around it were generally created to promote the procreation of the human species. Of the 7 or 8 billion people alive, not a single one was born of two men or two women. I am not claiming all marriages produce children or all children are born to marriages… only that marriage “encourages” the optimal environment for it. I am not saying all married couple are the best parent’s or that all gay couples are necessarily inferior to all straight couples in this regard. Merely observing that as a matter of natural law… evolution evolved the system we have for procreating and it is likely the optimal one.
Now, let’s talk of social security survivor benefits as an example societal policy. These benefits cost society money… which could alternately be spent on other public works… maybe curing cancer.
Survivor benefits were enacted, inter alia, to provide a safety net for the widowed mother who lost her bread winning husband.
What public good is served by giving a gay survivor benefits?
I would further say that my wife and I have been unable to have children. We have both worked all of our lives. What public good is served giving me survivor benefits if my wife dies? However, as a married person in a marriage with 2 incomes, I pay a “marriage tax” amounting to a maybe $1500-2000 a year… I would like a refund on this.
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Hate to jump in but, Wouldn’t you be the one to tell them? especially if you’re not in favor of divorce?
glbtq.com/social-sciences/mixed_orientation_marriages.html
transcendingboundaries.org/resources/mixed-orientation-marriage.html
Or how about honoring the 8th commandment?
From Catechism of the Catholic Church
2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others.
Wouldn’t a gay man living a heterosexual life be living a lie? Even if his “wife” knew, would he not be lying to himself?
…are you asking or can I assume you’re implying they indeed would not go to hell?
J
johnweeder
Guest
You are correct to say “most likely”. So the implication is that in some cases we could potentially know. And therefore, the statement “we can never know what caused the universe” is logically false.
I would phrase it more that “we can never know with certainty”.
I would say we can eliminate some possibilities.
I would say we can even speak of the relative likelihood of some possibilities.
I would also note that we cannot even speak with absolute certainty about any single physical event which will happen in the future of this universe. That does not stop me from setting my alarm to get to work tomorrow…
J
johnweeder
Guest
That’s roughly akin to me saying “I would be living a lie if I didn’t gorge myself at the all-you-can eat buffet” (I’m overweight and given my family there is certainly some genetic tie).
Or akin to saying “wouldn’t the pedophile be living a lie if he didn’t molest children” or “wouldn’t the sociopath be living a lie if he didn’t commit some ax murders”.
I’ve addressed in a different post the matter of “it’s between consenting adults and doesn’t affect others… as opposed to rape or ax murders”. Short story is basically I think every action I make ripples to affect all society.
I would like to add from a religious perspective that it is best to leave the judging of who goes to heaven and hell up to God.
Perhaps the sociopath could not control himself and perhaps it is God’s plan that the sociopath murders me with an ax. There may simply be a reason for this. Or, it may be evil. I can’t know. Still, that does not say that society can’t make a law to attempt to shield itself from ax wielding homicidal maniacs. Or that it can’t justly punish them.
(I pride myself on being able to debate both sides of an argument so…)
I would offer as a counter point that perhaps gay couples serve purpose from the perspective of our species. Maybe, like grandparents, they provide a resource that helps in the raising of children. Perhaps despite whatever harm (if any) one might encounter from acting on gay tendencies, we find that on balance a net societal good is created.
Ultimately, perhaps, one might have to say “man can’t know the answer and must accept the expressed will of God”. Even if so, now one proceeds to “can I force the will of my God on the other citizens of the United States.”
What I hope to leave here, John, is that the picture is not as clear cut as one might attempt to make it appear with a few clever sound bites about equality or living a lie or *Jesus loves everyone *or it’s not hurting anyone else.
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
I don’t deny the statement in bold, I’d say what I suggested is not remotely akin to what you suggest in that while you like to think every action has a ripple affect…we KNOW the murderer or molester definitively has a negative affect on at least 1 other person.
(I dread using the word definitively in reply to you, but I’ll take the risk)
It is akin, to me, in how I phrase it. Or in a general sense I guess. In that each of the examples would technically be fighting against his/her nature.
As far as affecting others, I could on a very sub-human level suggest all the examples do not affect me personally, so long as I’m not the one murdered or molested. & those crimes happen astoundingly often, yet I’ve never been the target.
I think equating violating a child, murdering another, and being in a loving relationship is the main problem in the discussion
Still, the more I read you post the more I want to read them
Cheers
J
johnweeder
Guest
I think you lose here John!
People often ask why God allows bad things to happen. His plan may be for me to die.
Perhaps I am the next Adolf Hitler and the ax wielder is actually facilitating the greater public good.
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
I didn’t suggest anything about right or wrong, only that we know it affects at least 1 person negatively. Regardless of who you may eventually become, your death will still affect you in the most negative wayI think you lose here John!
People often ask why God allows bad things to happen. His plan may be for me to die.
Perhaps I am the next Adolf Hitler and the ax wielder is actually facilitating the greater public good.
(Look at me again, all brave. “We know” I says :whacky: )
Each and every time a pedophile molests a child, every time someone with mental illness kills another - at least 1 other person is negatively affected, no?
Even if you can submit statistical evidence that homosexual couples on the whole may produce negative affects, can it be said each single couple negatively affects at least one other individual outside of themselves?
J
johnweeder
Guest
Fine, that is why I included the “overweight” example.
Accepting that it is genetic…
On one hand, it is my choice and apparently affecting no one else.
On the other, certainly my extra health care costs or lowered productivity place a burden on society.
Second point, I selected the pedophile example because it manifests that our sexual tendencies exist on a long continuum.
We may say person who is lgbt has an abnormal (as in different from baseline human) expression of sex, sex drive and/or gender identification. So does a pedophile.
Also, consider incest.
Did you know that even our drive to avoid incest has a mostly genetic component? A normal human is essentially sexually desensitized to an individual they encounter before a certain age (5 or 6 I think).
On the subject of incest, if I am gay can I marry my father or mother? brother or sister?
If I accept the argument that equality demands any two people can marry, then can I (a male) marry my mother or sister? Doesn’t this speak to the fact that marriage is primarily an institution of procreation? And, that there is a natural inequality (i.e. two men never made a baby)?
J
johnweeder
Guest
J
johnweeder
Guest
I concede ax murder and pedophile rapes are orders of magnitude worse.
However, let’s say the pedophile merely views lewd pictures of children. Let’s further assume these pictures have long existed and the pedophile in question had absolutely no role in their creation (they were taken before he was born). He views them in private and never further acts on the tendencies.
Does this affect society at large or not? I believe I could make a case either way. I believe this example would be more on par with acting on gay tendencies.
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Afraid you’re talking to the wrong guy on the overweight front
I will say your production level would be far worse if you were dead. I still fail to see how the 2 equate.
A pedophile’s …partner…cannot consent. A gay man’s partner can. A gay pedophile cannot gain consent either, but that hasn’t stopped some…
On the underlined, No, I did not know that. Interesting. On the other, now you’re arguing taste. As, would it be in bad taste to marry my sister? Would your sister consent?
Are you allowed to marry her, or are you asking if you should be allowed?
When did I start talking about marriage?
Cheers!
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Counter: We know the difference how?Counter…
If it were God’s will, the ax murder affected me positively
J
johnweeder
Guest
I am exceedingly careful about using words like always or never. all or nothing.
In a sense, your question is a straw man. It is akin to asking “Have you stopped abusing your wife yet?” If I say “No”, you say “So you are still abusing her?” And, if I say “Yes”, you say “So when did you stop abusing her?”.
I would have to answer you question “No”, because I am reluctant to say “every one affects at least one other”. However, that only implies you could find at least 1 couple and possibly no more than that.
J
johnweeder
Guest
Counter Counter: The assumption is that the catholic God is perfectly benevolent. So, essentially by definition, if I am murdered by his plan then it is good.
We can’t know though whether my ax murder was strictly God’s will or merely God allowing men to exercise their free will as evil. Although, ultimately, I suppose one will say everything that happens is in furtherance of God’s will and therefore good.
But I am not sure how this explains Satan… frankly his existence and his motivations to undertake a futile course of action given his originally angelic nature is quite perplexing to me.
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
I read about this a couple months ago. I had to look up the term, but it’s called “contented pedophile”
Don’t know how I feel about it. Especially when you add “taken before he was born”
I can’t say for sure, because there would be other contributing factors I’d want to know about, but on it’s face value I’d say he wouldn’t seem to be harming any children
- Status