Gay marriage is a civil right

  • Thread starter Thread starter Magnanimity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zatzat

*No one is protesting against divorce, because divorce won’t threaten the very foundation of heterosexual marriages!! *

Certainly not with serial heterosexual marriages in the offing!:rolleyes:

Divorce does not threaten heterosexual marriage as an institution so much as it threatens the future lives of the children who are the victims of divorce.

It is not in the order of nature for a child to be reared by a single parent. That is why in some species the father remains loyal to the mother and offspring and feeds and protects them.

It would be decidely a lot *more * opposed to the order of nature for a child to be reared by two homosexual parents. Pity the child’s chances for a normal life.
 
Zatzat said:
.

I imagine I could worship a God who praised homosexual unions. Who’d you be to tell me that my God was wrong? I’d have access to the truth, directly from the one true God, my God!

Then you could tell me that your God is the true God and I’d correct you, telling you that my God is the true God. We could go back and forth like that for the rest of our natural lives. 😉
Click to expand...
You are creating a god in your own image then or rather how you want him to be. That’s called idolatry and it’s one of the oldest sins in the book. That’s also why many religions and cults have started. Plus you would be lying about receiving revelation from God another very old sin.
 
free2pray said:
You are creating a god in your own image then or rather how you want him to be. That’s called idolatry and it’s one of the oldest sins in the book. That’s also why many religions and cults have started. Plus you would be lying about receiving revelation from God another very old sin.
Click to expand...
If I worshiped a different God than you, I’d know for a fact you were wrong and know for an absolute fact that I was right.

There is nothing you could say to convince me that my God was false, just as there’s nothing I can say to convince you that your God is false.

If my God said that Gay unions were great, then that’d have to mean that your God was wrong.

It’s a pretty simple concept.
 
God and religion are a concern when developing any moral framework or laws.

Morality has to do with oughts and ought nots so when we say that homosexuality ought not to be practiced then we are speaking within a moral framework. We are not reproaching the civil rights of a homosexual person by saying that homosexuality ought not to be practiced. Civil rights has less to do with behavior and more to do with an individuals, races or other groups. Granted that homosexuals have become a group but here is the rub, they are defining themselves based on their actions. SO to speak against their actions now becomes an assault on how they have decided to identify themselves. But discussion of whether or not these acts ought to be practiced or not MUST continue or we are not free to speak or judge what is morally right, which is also a breach of our civil rights. The problem is that homosexuals have decided that to speak against this act is breach of civil rights because then we are seen to be discriminating against people when in fact we are speaking of oughts and ought nots. Our language becomes “hate speech” and Pastors and Priests are arrested for preaching their holy book which states that this is morally wrong! So the “so called” persecuted ones i.e homosexuals become the ones who are persecuting Christians because the Christians believe it is wrong. So in your cause to vindicate yourself you condemn most of the world who believes this is wrong, and if a society accepts your plight as being legitimate then legal action must be taken against those who say this is wrong. Very ironic if you ask me for this leads to a very fundamental breach of human rights, freedom of speech. How can this be? Do we have the right to speak against any action within a moral framework? Surely we must be free to decide whether this is moral. If society decides that it is not moral, or rather recognizes that it is immoral, will it ever be seen as a condemnation of an act and not a person (though a person can be condemned for his acts)? I understand that acts can define people for example when someone lies we see him as a liar (with some exceptions), or when someone rapes we call him a rapist, or when someone murders that person is called a murder and so on and a person can be prosecuted according to his acts in regards to the law, but this doesn’t mean that we don’t that the right and the duty to decide whether these acts are moral or not. And it doesn’t mean that just because Homosexuals have placed their identity in this behavior that we cannot judge it as a moral ought not.
 
free2pray said:
did you even read the post i doubt it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it provides for weak justification for the mass slaughter of human beings. Seeing as we’re talking about societies, that must include babes, toddlers and babies in the womb.

You may not like it, but you just can’t justify slaughtering an entire race of people…including the babies, toddlers and babies in their mothers wombs.
 
Zatzat said:
Yes, and it provides for weak justification for the mass slaughter of human beings. Seeing as we’re talking about societies, that must include babes, toddlers and babies in the womb.

You may not like it, but you just can’t justify slaughtering an entire race of people…including the babies, toddlers and babies in their mothers wombs.
Click to expand...
I don’t justify it i merely point out that if God exists he has the right to judge the world.
 
free2pray said:
God and religion are a concern when developing any moral framework or laws.

Morality has to do with oughts and ought nots so when we say that homosexuality ought not to be practiced then we are speaking within a moral framework. We are not reproaching the civil rights of a homosexual person by saying that homosexuality ought not to be practiced. Civil rights has less to do with behavior and more to do with an individuals, races or other groups. Granted that homosexuals have become a group but here is the rub, they are defining themselves based on their actions. SO to speak against their actions now becomes an assault on how they have decided to identify themselves. But discussion of whether or not these acts ought to be practiced or not MUST continue or we are not free to speak or judge what is morally right, which is also a breach of our civil rights. The problem is that homosexuals have decided that to speak against this act is breach of civil rights because then we are seen to be discriminating against people when in fact we are speaking of oughts and ought nots. Our language becomes “hate speech” and Pastors and Priests are arrested for preaching their holy book which states that this is morally wrong! So the “so called” persecuted ones i.e homosexuals become the ones who are persecuting Christians because the Christians believe it is wrong. So in your cause to vindicate yourself you condemn most of the world who believes this is wrong, and if a society accepts your plight as being legitimate then legal action must be taken against those who say this is wrong. Very ironic if you ask me for this leads to a very fundamental breach of human rights, freedom of speech. How can this be? Do we have the right to speak against any action within a moral framework? Surely we must be free to decide whether this is moral. If society decides that it is not moral, or rather recognizes that it is immoral, will it ever be seen as a condemnation of an act and not a person (though a person can be condemned for his acts)? I understand that acts can define people for example when someone lies we see him as a liar (with some exceptions), or when someone rapes we call him a rapist, or when someone murders that person is called a murder and so on and a person can be prosecuted according to his acts in regards to the law, but this doesn’t mean that we don’t that the right and the duty to decide whether these acts are moral or not. And it doesn’t mean that just because Homosexuals have placed their identity in this behavior that we cannot judge it as a moral ought not.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for a response
 
Zatzat said:
…and kill the worlds inhabitants, don’t forget that, as that is what we’re talking about.
Click to expand...
No we are talking about Gay marriage being a civil right. If you want to talk about this i don’t mind i think Christians have fantastic answers to those questions just should be a different thread right?
 
free2pray said:
No we are talking about Gay marriage being a civil right. If you want to talk about this i don’t mind i think Christians have fantastic answers to those questions just should be a different thread right?
Click to expand...
Fair enough, as we were entering thread hijacking territory.

…please, carry on.
 

Will gay marriage remedy the following?​

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is not a part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, religious or otherwise. It is tasked with disease control and prevention, and reports the stubborn facts about an array of health problems.

A data analysis released today by the CDC finds that homosexuals have an HIV infection rate that is more than 44 times higher than that of sexually normal men.

Forty-four times the rate of infection - for a deadly virus that kills its hosts.

Further, the rate of syphilis infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) is an astonishing 46 times higher than that among sexually normal men.

Says Kevin Fenton, M.D., of the CDC, “[T]his analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations.”

If there was ever a sexual behavior that deserved to be militantly opposed, in law as well as in public policy, homosexuality is it. It is lethal, it is fatal, and it is the height of callous indifference to tell these men that not only is their behavior okay, we will punish anyone who dares to criticize it.
 
MMprn said:

Will gay marriage remedy the following?​

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is not a part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, religious or otherwise. It is tasked with disease control and prevention, and reports the stubborn facts about an array of health problems.

A data analysis released today by the CDC finds that homosexuals have an HIV infection rate that is more than 44 times higher than that of sexually normal men.

Forty-four times the rate of infection - for a deadly virus that kills its hosts.

Further, the rate of syphilis infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) is an astonishing 46 times higher than that among sexually normal men.

Says Kevin Fenton, M.D., of the CDC, “[T]his analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations.”

If there was ever a sexual behavior that deserved to be militantly opposed, in law as well as in public policy, homosexuality is it. It is lethal, it is fatal, and it is the height of callous indifference to tell these men that not only is their behavior okay, we will punish anyone who dares to criticize it.
Click to expand...
Your point is utterly lost on me, especially when I read;

**’ STDs increasing among young women; more prevention urged

Blacks also continue to be disproportionately affected by STDs, with higher rates than any other racial or ethnic group, a CDC report found.**

The annual study, which tracked reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis in the United States during 2008, showed that chlamydia and gonorrhea are most prevalent among young women age 15 to 19 – 409,531 cases’

ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/12/07/prsb1207.htm
 
Zatzat said:
If I worshiped a different God than you, I’d know for a fact you were wrong and know for an absolute fact that I was right.

There is nothing you could say to convince me that my God was false, just as there’s nothing I can say to convince you that your God is false.

If my God said that Gay unions were great, then that’d have to mean that your God was wrong.

It’s a pretty simple concept.
Click to expand...
Friend – the stance against gay “marriage” does not need to be grounded in religion. So for what we are discussing here, you can skip the religious diatribes. The valid points you might have can be applied in a thread about the existence of God.

Rather, the impossibility of gay “marriage” is grounded in simple biology, which can’t be changed by any government declaration. If you can find a way for nature to have two males (or two females) generate a baby, then we can talk about homosexual “marriage.”

But this overall idea is lost on many people today, because they have no concept of sex being naturally tied to procreation. (And as has been mentioned several times here, the ability to procreate does not equate with the requirement to do so. But sex is “naturally ordered” toward procreation; that cannot be denied.)
 
Zatzat

The annual study, which tracked reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis in the United States during 2008, showed that chlamydia and gonorrhea are most prevalent among young women age 15 to 19 – 409,531 cases’

What is your point? From these statistics all I can gather is that you have made a case against sexual promiscuity, which is also immoral and also not to be advanced or protected as public policy any more than homosexuality. 😉
 
surritter

Friend – the stance against gay “marriage” does not need to be grounded in religion.

Amen!

It is sufficient to attack gay marriage as directly opposed to common sense.
 
free2pray said:
Yes but those persons were not using their hermeneutics. You could quote me as saying “Yes” in my last sentence and say that i agree with what you were saying but then i used the word "but"and continued with my point. Bible can be misquoted and used poorly all the time. That doesn’t mean that it is not clear on those issues Col 3:11, Gal 3:28. Anyway sorry racism is a different topic altogether but let me just say that the Bible has been clear on many things such as it’s condemnation of homosexuality but people love to ignore or twist the meaning of scripture to back there already held views.
Click to expand...
This thread is discussing civil marriage. The Bible refers to religious marriage as defined for Jews (OT only) and Christians (OT & NT). There are other religious definitions of marriage in e.g. The Qur’an for Moslems. Those definitions only apply to those particular religious communities.

The Bible does not define marriage for the purposes of American law; for instance no-fault divorce is recognised in American law but is not generally held to be recognised in the Bible. Marriage in American civil law is defined by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Arguments about what the Bible, the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon say are not strictly relevant in this specific thread.

rossum
 
rossum said:
This thread is discussing civil marriage. The Bible refers to religious marriage as defined for Jews (OT only) and Christians (OT & NT). There are other religious definitions of marriage in e.g. The Qur’an for Moslems. Those definitions only apply to those particular religious communities.

The Bible does not define marriage for the purposes of American law; for instance no-fault divorce is recognised in American law but is not generally held to be recognised in the Bible. Marriage in American civil law is defined by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Arguments about what the Bible, the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon say are not strictly relevant in this specific thread.

rossum
Click to expand...
True. But do the rules of biological science apply? (see post #175)
 
rossum

Arguments about what the Bible, the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon say are not strictly relevant in this specific thread.

Not relevant also, I suppose, is the definition of marriage by every other culture in the history of the world? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top