Secular argument against gay marriage

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Actually the part of this system which is subjective is one of the strengths of it. Because it allows it to flex to the differences between people.

Lets take a frivolous example. Imagine a person who suffers enormously listening to Beethoven (think Alex after the treatment in a Clockwork Orange). It would be highly immoral to lock him in a room and play Beethoven, because it would cause him enormous suffering, it would be a form of torture. The fact that it wouldn’t cause MOST PEOPLE suffering to do so is not relevant.

Not quite, the correct thing to say is that there is no ABSOLUTE morality, no ABSOLUTE measures of right and wrong. That doesn’t reduce it to subjectivity to the individual. We can still create moral systems that work for our entire species (ie the one I explained above) just as some other species do for that matter.

It just means that human laws of morality don’t apply to bats and bats laws of morality don’t apply to humans.

Why would we need to? Has someone found a nothing someone got something from?

I think you will find all throughout history that the embracement of atheism and the rejection of God has been most catestrophic for a society and primarily the individuals who believed such a lie.

I wish I could say something to you, that will inspire you to read the Gospels, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Because it is the recount of Immanuel, God being with us. The gospels hits us so hard for that reason, it is unlike anything else.

Anyway I say this, because I know it would be haunting for those who suppress the “big questions” in life and wonder aimlessley through it. And also because the most important charity is the one of sharing our knowldge of God with others.

I just wish there was something I could say to athiest/agnostic to see the value and harness that enourmous value from the gospels and Christianity, nothing else matters in life, those who suppress the big and most important questions are always left unfulfilled and empty.

Because there are those who reach the end of their life and realise that they were right in their Christian faith and yet did nothing to share that truth with others and I don’t want to be like that.

Anyway this was way off-topic, I just wanted to quickly share it with you.

Having sex outside of marriage I have explained I do not find immoral in itself (although it is in some cases). The other two I have explained why I don’t have an opinion to give you. I’m not sure that I can help you further from here really.

Okay, I’ll drop those and just stick with fornication.

Not if they’re infertile though. To use previously used terminology, they can imitate reproductive sexual acts, but as these acts cannot themselves be reproductive.

But it’s still the same sexual act.

As far as I know there’s nothing in the marriage law right now that would prevent roommates doing so. However, the legal obligations that places on them in their relationship along with the social implications of marriage tend to mean people don’t do it in practice.

Maybe there are people out there right now doing it though, how would we know? The only time married relationships get scrutinised to the level where it might be discovered is in cases of security clearance and permission to remain in the country.

Actually, your right, there probably are people out there doing it right now.

I’ll drop that argument, (if you don’t mind).

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

I believe that the arrangements internationally is that countries generally respect the marriage of people from other countries. For example a homosexual couple married in France who emigrate to the US would still be considered to be a married couple.

But I must admit I’m not sure on that but it seems a ridiculous idea that two people could get on a plane as a married couple and without doing anything get off it unmarried, then drive across another border and be married again…

I am not entirely sure either, so for example can a homosexual couple drive to a state where same sex marriage is legal. Get married. Drive back to their home state and be recognised as a marriage where same sex marriage has not been legalised?

I think adoption services should take account of all relevant factors, and sometimes that will determine that this heterosexual couple are better than that homosexual couple, and sometimes it will determine that this homosexual couple is better than that heterosexual couple. The key is in ensuring that the agency applies standards evenly.

I also think adoption agencies should take in all relevant factors, the problem is the subjectiveness of it all and if homosexual unions are seen as equal to heterosexual marriages, than it would be society saying that a father figure and mother figure are irrelevant for society and thus would mean that an adoption agency couldn’t consider those factors, which I think would be wrong.

Two points, first very far from “Everyone” opposes divorce and abortion.

Secondly it’s far too soon to make that judgement with any level of reliability I’m afraid. It took centuries before banning slavery was accepted everywhere after it was first banned. And I’m sure even 50 years after that people were still arguing in favour of it. Another 50 years later it was rare… now it’s more or less extinct.

True, but Christ never advocated slavery.

Christ says in the gospels “You shouldn’t divorce your wife unless she has commited a terrible sexual sin, if you divorce her you will cause her to be unfaithful, just as any man who marries her will be guilty of taking another mans wife.”

So the immorality/opposition of “no-fault divorce” will never deminish with time, unless christianity also diminishes.

And Abortion is just out right legalising murder. You don’t even have to go to religion to point out the immorality of Abortion. If you go to religion, it condemns abortion.

But if you cannot support why that requirement and not one of the others then the requirement is arbitrary or based purely on religious beliefs. Neither of which constitutes a secular argument.

True.

Whats your secular argument that says otherwise?

??? Of course Christians morality changes with society. Do you think all those slave owners in the US were members of some other religion? Back then most Christians happily accepted the morality of slavery and as I said even used the bible as support to that position.

Now Christians, along with everyone else believe that slavery was wrong. Christian morality has moved on.

If Christ advocated slavery in the New Testament, slavery would have no more fadded away than Christianity itself.

Remember Christianity, the New Testament, was a catalyst for abolishing slavery. The United states was founded on Christian values so how could Christianity have been in support of slavery when they used Christianity to help abolish slavery?

Sure, I know you believe that. And pair bonding makes sense from a secular point of view because its how we evolved.

Wouldn’t male and female pair bonding make sense for a marriage because thats how we have evoloved?

Fair enough.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

CandideWest;10759858:

b). A homosexual married couple having sex.

Morally Right. Provided it’s the sexual act ordered towards procteation, it is the only sexual act that bears any real fruit and unfies such a couple.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

My apologies, I miss read what you said.

b). A homosexual married couple having sex.

Immoral. Not only is it to selfishly and mutually appease their sexual desires, but such sexual acts are intrinsically disordered, they are acts of grave depravities, it is a miss use of our sexual organs.

Therefore it is no different to a). whether a homosexual couple is in a marriage or not, such sexual act is immoral regardless of circumstance because of the very nature of it.

c). A heterosexual married couple having sex.

Morally Right. Provided it’s the sexual act ordered towards procteation, it is the only sexual act that bears any real fruit and unfies such a couple.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

An impression is not a valid reason - unlike a conclusion based on personal experience.

a.k.a. anecdotal.

*Non sequitur. Adoption agencies should take into account the health and life-style of **both ***heterosexual and homosexual adopters - bearing in mind that all homosexuals expose children to a greater risk of infection.

Yes, that’s what I said.

Adoption agencies take the nature of the prospective adopters’ relationship into account regardless of whether they are married - which is another reason why the demand for gay marriage is absurd.

If adoption agencies ignore married status then by that reasoning all marriage is absurd. :compcoff:

An observation without foundation!

You said “The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage” while you have argued that what people regard in a homosexual relationship is relevant. It follows that you are inconsistent.

*Your request for a supporting argument implies that the roles of the father and mother are not complementary:

1. Are the paternal and maternal instincts illusions?

1. Do the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children?

1. Can two men understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman?

1. Can two women understand an adolescent boy as well as a man?

1. Has the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children?

1. Is there any reason why being brought up by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?*

The reason I asked for a supporting argument / evidence is I don’t know whether these traits are biological, i.e. exactly the same in all cultures, or if they vary by culture.

If they vary by culture then changing the culture will change the traits. For example, the survey I linked yesterday indicates that homophobic discrimination varies quite widely between different EU states, which is strong evidence that the discrimination is cultural and not natural.

Also, for instance on point 3, what if the two men are the girl’s long-time parents while the woman is a childless stranger? In other words you cannot treat people as if they are machines, you cannot wave your hand and choose one trait while ignoring all other factors.

Please answer the foregoing questions.

Please see above.

No response.

I didn’t respond to that because it repeated the same assumption that there are fundamental behavioral differences which apply to all men and all women across all cultures.

For instance, are you saying that women should remain silent in the churches (1 Cor 14:34-35)? You’ll understand that claiming all men share a fundamentally different nature to all women is in essence saying that men and women are not created equal.

Historical precedents do not determine moral values.

Which is still irrelevant to gay marriage since in your country and many others unmarried same-sex couples have been able to adopt for many years.

 

[inocente]

See the** bold** below… the license is given to support marriage as a life giving enterprise that carries on the civilization… It’s all about families. Homosexual unions do not provide anything to society. No building block. Even the pagan Romans understood this and admired the Christians self giving in raising children and caring for the old.

The Real Issue

Why can’t homosexuals obtain a marriage license? Is this an issue of equal protection under the law? We can better answer these questions when we understand why the state issues marriage licenses.
Marriage licenses are issued so that marriage can be tracked for the purpose of executing other laws which takes into account the marriage covenant. These laws include trial law (spousal testimony), taxation laws (filing status), and property law ( inheritance and common property). All these laws are beneficial to the married couple. So in effect the state issues marriage licenses in order to grant benefits to married couples.

Why do we grant benefits to married couples?
The state grants benefits to married couples because the state indirectly benefits from the activity surrounding family life. This is similar to the state granting support for college students in the form of student loans and grants. Having a higher educated population benefits the state in the activities this endeavor creates not only within the educational establishment but throughout society. Similarly the state promotes Military service by granting benefits to servicemen and veterans. Although there are people who disagree with military service or marriage, the vast majority of Americans believe that these activities should be promoted.

That brings up an intriguing question;
Does the majority within a democracy have the right to promote the activities it deems beneficial to society by providing benefits?
If the majority of people believe that homosexual marriage does not benefit society, do they have the right not to grant them the benefits of civil marriage? And if civil marriage is a benefit granted by a democratic state, the question of equality and civil rights does not apply. You do not have a right to a benefit. The real issue is whether the majority rules.

Do we have a democracy?

You appear to be arguing that marriage is just a bureaucratic convenience, which is a claim made by those who think marriage is obsolete and want to do away with it all together.

Those of us in favor of gay marriage strongly disagree, we are saying that far from being obsolete, marriage should be extended, we are reaffirming the value of marriage.

Also, in many countries the legislatures have for many years tried to harmonize tax laws, etc. so that it makes little or no difference whether a couple are married, in other words politicians have set out NOT to provide financial incentives or other benefits depending on marital status.

As for democracy, sometimes the majority agrees with you, sometimes not, but either way the majority rule or it’s not a democracy.

 

[inocente]

Where does Jesus deny that it’s immoral? Where does he tell his followers to ignore that particular Jewish law and custom?

That particular law and custom is “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Lev 20:13).

So are you saying Jesus doesn’t want his followers to ignore that? Or wants them to ignore one verse but not another?

'On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?’ (Luke 10)

So how would you answer Jesus, what do you think is written in the Law?

 

[inocente]

The topic of ID is intrinsic to the OP, since you fallaciously claim that God didn’t design our bodies.

The Church has changed the Apostle’s Creed to read “I believe in the intelligent design agent, designer of heaven and earth”?

The Church is now a branch of the Discovery Institute?

Revelation and 2,000 years of Christianity wiped out for an American cult that’s already on its last legs?



I take it you’re not being serious, thanks for the laugh.

 

[inocente]

Marriage is defined by the vows **at present **but your respect for “passing fashions” can surely overcome that minor obstacle. Isn’t morality relative?

That’s what my opponents seem to be arguing, but I think the requirements of the law are written on our hearts, our consciences also bearing witness, and our thoughts sometimes accusing us and at other times even defending us.

I’m amazed you’re departing from your principle of absolute equality for all genders. But then it is inconsistent with your moral relativism, isn’t it? On the other hand we have to modify our views to reach our desired conclusions. Otherwise we would lose the battle!

How on Earth did you get that from “For the same reason you can’t marry your hat-stand and other diverse objects (of either gender)”???

I’m not the one who is advocating novel forms of marriage… perhaps with an ulterior motive!

You’re the one asking why you can’t marry your cat.

Unfortunately you have rejected Design - which rules out an appeal to the teaching of Jesus (who pointed to the beauty of the lilies as evidence of divine purpose and love).

No, I’ve ruled out here-today and gone-tomorrow cults.

Moreover the topic is secular arguments against gay marriage which rules out an appeal to the religious basis of morality - unless you believe in one law for you and another for your opponents…

You’re obviously not aware that the Golden Rule has a secular origin:

“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” – Confucius

“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” –Laozi

“Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” – Pittacus

“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” – Thales

"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus

etc.

That’s the great thing about going to school, you learn stuff.

 

[inocente]

You will think I am repeating this question again, but I want you to answer it with refference to your above comments, since you think gay marriage is a revolution that will explicitly deny marriage being about procreation. which you are quite correct by the way.

Why would polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships be unable to marry? because like you have said marriage has nothing to do with sex, it is a life long union, so for example family members should be allowed to have a life long union so why can they not marry one another?

You and some others appear to think that laws are designed to be logically watertight. In the real-world, the place outside of internet forums, laws are not made like that. In the real-world they are usually drafted by civil servants, debated in the parliament and amended in committees. Nothing in the process involves making sure they are watertight because in the real-world that’s impossible.

In the real-world exceptions are dealt with by going to court and having a judge rule on what was the intent of the legislature. For instance a judge in Spain would have a very easy decision here since it is obvious that our Congress was minded to extend marriage to LGBT only, and to no other group.

Can you see it now? Creation and Design, you do not get a creation without a design, just like the dictionary didn’t come about by an explosion in a printing press.

To some posters “design” specifically means ID, which to me is a American political movement from the last century which attempted to replace Christianity with pseudo-science, so for me the word design, especially when capitalized, is anathema.

My faith is very strongly based on Christ crucified, not on invented hypotheses. The reading for today is 1 Cor 1:18-31.

*The possibility of the human enzyme comming together by random is 1 in 10^40000, which is more than the number of atoms in this universe, it is timewise and mathematically impossible.

I think it is safe to say that we were designed *

Discussion of evolution is banned, but let’s just say that while the laws of physics may be designed (they appear to be perfect), there are so many imperfections and mistakes in human anatomy that to me it’s an insult to Almighty God to claim that He could have produced such an incompetent design.

But this is way off-topic and so this is my last word on it.

*Have you heard of anyone saying “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be virgins forever, how nice of them”? can you give me an example of any normal person in the real world who thinks marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy?

Like I said before, marriage isn’t just about sex, but it isn’t exclusive of sex either, thus why same sex marriage is absolutley advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality.*

Nice try but the stickies say don’t answer a question with a question, if you don’t know the answer then say so. Again then I asked: When did you last hear someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be able to have lots of sex, how nice for them”? Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is about sex?

*haha, probably.

We are talking about sex all the time because people seem to be ignoring that aspect of marriage, if it was not for the sexual acts, no one would have a problem with same sex marriage, it is the sexual acts of homosexuality that are advocated and normalised for society with same sex marriage that we are all againt.*

Sure, I understand that you don’t have a case unless you can redefine marriage to be about sex.

 

[inocente]

:clapping: exactly, I absolutley agree with you, I am just so glad you can see that they harm each other, because I find it hard to produce a secular argument to show people that and it is the core of why we are in such opposition to the sexual acts of homosexuality.

So thus, you must ask yourself, why does fornication/promiscuity harm those both involved and the sexual acts of homosexuality doesn’t?

I don’t understand. Rape is harmful and for that reason is a criminal offense, yet you think homosexual sex is harmful but are not saying it should be a criminal offense.

Please make up your mind, either it’s harmful or it isn’t.

But also I don’t understand why you think fornication necessarily harms both those involved. I mean two women are in a committed long-term relationship, they are not promiscuous and they want to be married. Their relationship harms neither of them nor anyone else but because you deny them marriage you label them fornicators as if labeling them makes any difference to the morality. It doesn’t.

No, you are so close, we have to talk about sex because you are ignoring it and I think all of those in support of same sex marriage must also be ignoring it, it’s the underlying truth of homosexuality that makes it so immoral.

This is just your opinion though, that marriage is about sex and that sex is about which bits you think fit neatly together.

Anyone who supports same sex marriage is advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality and if the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral because of consent, than fornication and promiscuity should also follow as moral because they have the same “consent” reasoning.

I think you need to stop and think what you’re saying here. I want to encourage homosexuals to marry, i.e. to stand before their family and friends and publicly announce they are in a long-term relationship, i.e. not promiscuous fornication, while you would deny them that.

* Could you refrase that question please? and we don’t call homosexuals immoral, we call the sexual acts of homosexuality immoral. We call the sexual acts they desire immoral.

Could you please explain or elaborate.*

As I was asking because you confused me, and now I’ve confused you in turn, probably best to drop that one.

True, but if “society” decided that incestuous marriage should be legalised, would you support it?

I think I’m the only one on the thread who has given reasons against incest, so obviously no.

Just because you “allow” something to continue doesn’t mean you have normalised it and when it comes to same sex marriage and the sexual acts of homosexuality, we are against such acts being a part of “family life.” Which would be “normalising” such acts with family life.

You said "I am not arguing for forced treatment or criminalization of gays and yes we are allowing these “depravities” to continue to produce “moral corruption”, so your log-term lack of action means you are treating it as normal, i.e. usual, typical, expected and thus it is normalized.

*It isn’t a secular argument but it’s important.

I found a great post on this from Elizabeth502 and I have been searching for it for a while and found this one (#212)* that is very close to it.

Could you put it in your own words first, as I think it may be unfair to discuss her post from another thread out-of-context.

*I think the sexual acts of homosexuality is immoral

You think the morality is similar to the sexual act of heterosexuals? please explain how?*

For example, with consent there are circumstances where either may be moral while without consent definitely not.

You think marriage isn’t about sex? I don’t think marriage is just about sex, but I know that sexual intimacy is a part of marriage, to say that marriage has nothing to do with sex is just as illogical as it is for me to try and claim that marriage is only about sex.

Ok but sex is never mentioned in the ceremony and registrars never refuse to marry a couple who don’t plan to have sex, they never even ask.

 

[inocente]

The sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral because of consent, than fornication and promiscuity should also follow as moral because they have the same “consent” reasoning.

I am hoping that you see fornication and promiscuity as immoral.

Don’t understand. If two women are married to each other in an exclusive relationship, what’s that got to do with fornication or promiscuity?

 

[josh987654321]

You and some others appear to think that laws are designed to be logically watertight. In the real-world, the place outside of internet forums, laws are not made like that. In the real-world they are usually drafted by civil servants, debated in the parliament and amended in committees. Nothing in the process involves making sure they are watertight because in the real-world that’s impossible.

In the real-world exceptions are dealt with by going to court and having a judge rule on what was the intent of the legislature. For instance a judge in Spain would have a very easy decision here since it is obvious that our Congress was minded to extend marriage to LGBT only, and to no other group.

True, but given the legislation of same sex marriage, on what grounds could they refuse incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage? how do you think they could accept same sex marriage for one reason and when the exact same reasoning is applied to these other unions, discriminate against them?

And really it comes down to whether you support same sex marriage or not. You have not given me a reason why you support same sex marriage yet not incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage, given that according to you the sexual nature of such unions are irrelevant when it comes to marriage.

So in your answer, you cannot use the sexual nature of such relationships, because if you do than you will have to use it for homosexual relationships. You can’t use abuse either, because your statistics on abuse are just as relative as my statistics on promiscuity and higher chances of STD’s amongst homosexual couples and yet you deny those claims. Because it is not the case for all homosexuals, just like abuse is not the case for all polygamous and incestuous relationships.

To some posters “design” specifically means ID, which to me is a American political movement from the last century which attempted to replace Christianity with pseudo-science, so for me the word design, especially when capitalized, is anathema.

So do you believe that God is our creator? that he created the universe and everything in it? which would mean that he created the two human genders of male and female?

Mathew 19:4
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,

So I guess what I am wondering, is whether or not you reject this quote from the Gospel of Mathew? and if so why, what is your theory for doing so?

My faith is very strongly based on Christ crucified, not on invented hypotheses. The reading for today is 1 Cor 1:18-31.

Invented Hypotheses? what has been my invented hypotheses?

How does 1 Cor 1:18-37 relate amongst Christians? If I say that no fault divorce is moral would God be please if I used the exact same passage to deny what Christ had said about divorce?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

“God is please through the foolishness of what is preached to save those who believe.”

This is in relation to non-believers who think we are fools for believing in Christ. So yes God is pleased that we preach his truth while others think we are fools for believing.

You might want to rethink that passage you have used in an effort to end any rational discussion on the truth of the issue of same sex marriage so you can advocate a lie in good conscience.

Discussion of evolution is banned, but let’s just say that while the laws of physics may be designed (they appear to be perfect), there are so many imperfections and mistakes in human anatomy that to me it’s an insult to Almighty God to claim that He could have produced such an incompetent design.

But this is way off-topic and so this is my last word on it.

It is important though, I hope it will not be your last word on it.

Im quite shocked that you would call Gods creation of us an incompetent design. Do we not see the light of day? do we not feel the warmth of the sun? Do we not smell the roses? Do we not appreciate what God has created for us? Do we not marvel at the complexity of humankind? Are we not alive? Do we not feel? Didn’t he come into this world as one of us? Was Christ not perfect in every way? Was God imperfect because he was made man?

It is only in times of suffering where, charity, humility, poverty in spirit and temperance are learned. Christ’s followers cannot march through life without a cross. We should pray for those who do not know of sufferings for it is certain that they are not among Christs own.

He giveth more grace when the burdens grow greater, He sendeth more strength when the labors increase, To added affliction, He addeth his mercy, to multiplied trials, his multiplied peace. When we have exhausted our store of endurance, When our strength has failed before the day is half done, when we reach the end of our stored resources, Our fathers full giving is only begun. His love has no limit, his grace has no measure, his power no boundary know unto man, for out of his infinite riches in Jesus, he giveth and giveth and giveth again.

How can you call Gods design incompetent? We are the ones who are incompetent. Gods design is perfect in every way. We are the ones who are imperfect.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Nice try but the stickies say don’t answer a question with a question, if you don’t know the answer then say so. Again then I asked: When did you last hear someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be able to have lots of sex, how nice for them”? Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is about sex?

I thought I made it clear. No. Marriage is not just about sex nor is it exclusive of it either.

My question was playing on yours to prove my point which was: When did you last here someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married. they’ll be virgins for ever, how nice for them”? Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is completely irrelevant to sexual intimacy, completely irrelevant to sex?

Sure, I understand that you don’t have a case unless you can redefine marriage to be about sex.

If you redefine marriage to be irrelevant of sex, than you don’t have a case to deny incestuous and polygamous marriages.

I don’t understand. Rape is harmful and for that reason is a criminal offense, yet you think homosexual sex is harmful but are not saying it should be a criminal offense.

Rape is a criminal offense because it is against the victims will.

Fornication and promisuity is immoral, but not a criminal offense because it is of consent.

Please make up your mind, either it’s harmful or it isn’t.

Of course they are both harmful. Rape is obviously gravely immoral, because it’s taking advantage of another person in such a personal and sacred way. It’s the physical abuse of a person.

Fornication/promisuity is immoral, because it is two coming together with consent to mutually appease their sexual desires.

Like I said before, “Love of eros” is not Christian love and anyone who confuses such love with Christian love is gravely mistaken.

But also I don’t understand why you think fornication necessarily harms both those involved. I mean two women are in a committed long-term relationship, they are not promiscuous and they want to be married. Their relationship harms neither of them nor anyone else but because you deny them marriage you label them fornicators as if labeling them makes any difference to the morality. It doesn’t.

I know it doesn’t, the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral regardless of the circumstances. The last thing we would accuse them of is fornication, it’s all to do with the immorality of the sexual acts of homosexuality that makes such actions immoral under any circumstances, whether they are labelled as married or not it really doesn’t make any difference to the morality of such acts.

This is just your opinion though, that marriage is about sex and that sex is about which bits you think fit neatly together.

Not personal opinion at all.

Like I mentioned earlier, marriage is not just about sex but it is not exclusive of it either. So marriage certainly includes sexual intimacy.

And when it comes to “what bits fit.”

Mathew 19:4
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,

It is clear that God created humankind, male and female and that the two complement one another in marriage in a way that only the two opposite genders can do.

I think you need to stop and think what you’re saying here. I want to encourage homosexuals to marry, i.e. to stand before their family and friends and publicly announce they are in a long-term relationship, i.e. not promiscuous fornication, while you would deny them that.

I think you need to think about it also, superficially same sex marriage looks like the christian thing to advocate, but fundamentally it is the work of the father of all lies to decieve the children of good will and breed sexual immorality amongst us like never before.

You are saying you want to publicly announce they are in a long-term relationship, the question is, what kind of long-term relationship? Isn’t it one that shares a sexual intimacy, in which would follow, what kind of sexual intimacy does it share and the morality of it?

As I was asking because you confused me, and now I’ve confused you in turn, probably best to drop that one.

Okay.

I think I’m the only one on the thread who has given reasons against incest, so obviously no.

Excellent, so if sex is irrelevant to marriage as you say, why would you deny siblings a long-term relationship with marriage as you say?

You said "I am not arguing for forced treatment or criminalization of gays and yes we are allowing these “depravities” to continue to produce “moral corruption”, so your long-term lack of action means you are treating it as normal, i.e. usual, typical, expected and thus it is normalized.

Did Christ normalise adultery when he did not stone the adulterer?

Could you put it in your own words first, as I think it may be unfair to discuss her post from another thread out-of-context.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and cuture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at the “conclusion” that Christ would see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons.

You can even google it - “would jesus support gay marriage”

See how many you find that claim yes compared to those that say no.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

For example, with consent there are circumstances where either may be moral while without consent definitely not.

So what circumstances with consent is fornication or promiscuity morally right?

Ok but sex is never mentioned in the ceremony and registrars never refuse to marry a couple who don’t plan to have sex, they never even ask.

True, yet that seems to be a factor in why we disallow incestuous marriage. Wouldn’t they not ask because it is assumed that sexual intimacy is involved in marriage?

Don’t understand. If two women are married to each other in an exclusive relationship, what’s that got to do with fornication or promiscuity?

Fornication and promiscuity are advocated through the same reasoning as the sexual acts of homosexuality are, which is “If both consent to it and it’s not hurting anyone else than whats wrong with it?”

Thus the father of all lies convinces people that sexual immorality is no longer immoral and thus the truth is rejected and our lust is embraced.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

For example, with consent there are circumstances where either may be moral while without consent definitely not.

YES!!

So it appears that “consent” cannot be the arbiter for the morality of a sexual act.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re obviously not aware that the Golden Rule has a secular origin:

“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” – Confucius

“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” –Laozi

“Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” – Pittacus

“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” – Thales

"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus

etc.

That’s the great thing about going to school, you learn stuff.

Actually, to prove that the Golden Rule is of a “secular,” ( i.e., of non-God ) origin, you would have to demonstrate that God does not inspire so-called secular individuals and so can not be, ultimately, the origin of any secular moral belief.

This is the problem with claiming to have a religious affiliation (Baptist) but, at the same time, having secularism as foundational to your moral beliefs. At some point inconsistencies arise - cognitive dissonance is the term.

You cannot consistently hold that God is Creator of all things and then pretend that all things, in particular the moral foundation for human beings, can just be explained by reasoning that excludes God. To make any sense of morality, it has to be considered with regard to final ends and final ends as far as Christianity is concerned cannot be properly understood absent God.

Your view of final ends is a deist one - that God simply set things in motion and will let the universe unfold without interference. If that were true then there would have been absolutely no need for the incarnation and resurrection. These were two instances where God intervened dramatically in the course of history.

If God has moral ends in place for human beings, and given free will, moral ends are not inevitable in the course of the evolution of biological beings, then God has a reason to be involved and intervene in history. Moral behaviour is not determined by physiology it is determined by teleology, reasoning and free will - none of which are integral to a biological or secular understanding of human beings.

We cannot have a complete picture of morality without accounting for the moral ends or final purpose that God has for human beings. Absent including these, human morality is limited to pragmatic or hypothetical imperatives - if I want this, then I should do this. However, limiting human moral vision will necessarily limit the scope of which ends humans can imagine and use as the end goals for moral thinking.

Unfortunately, your deist view of God causes severe limitations in your ethical thinking since you continually argue a secular perspective while claiming to be a Christian. Something has to give. Either you will give up theism or you will eventually see that secularism is inadequate regarding a complete ethical system.

 

[inocente]

Actually, to prove that the Golden Rule is of a “secular,” ( i.e., of non-God ) origin, you would have to demonstrate that God does not inspire so-called secular individuals and so can not be, ultimately, the origin of any secular moral belief.

By that logic you now need to demonstrate that God did not inspire secular moves to legalize gay marriage AND at the same time prove He inspired the origin of secular moral beliefs.



btw, what do you mean by “secular moral belief”? Natural law arguments? Morality you disagree with?

*This is the problem with claiming to have a religious affiliation (Baptist) but, at the same time, having secularism as foundational to your moral beliefs. At some point inconsistencies arise - cognitive dissonance is the term.

You cannot consistently hold that God is Creator of all things and then pretend that all things, in particular the moral foundation for human beings, can just be explained by reasoning that excludes God. To make any sense of morality, it has to be considered with regard to final ends and final ends as far as Christianity is concerned cannot be properly understood absent God.

Your view of final ends is a deist one [snip]*

Have you not seen the sticky which says it is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs?

As far as I can tell it applies even unto wannabe psychotherapists from the far end of the internet.

Following the surveys I linked yesterday, here’s yet another one from just two months ago which also finds that a majority of US Catholics support gay marriage. I guess you must also be accusing all those Catholics of secularism, along with the 2 in 3 Catholics who supported gay marriage in Spain, etc.

This may come as a shock but we belong to Christ and don’t care how you judge us.

Not even a little bit.

*For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. - Rom 14*

Now as the moderator says, let’s discuss the subject not each other. No reason why we can’t get on with each other. Do you have anything to say on the thread topic?

 

[josh987654321]

Following the surveys I linked yesterday, here’s yet another one from just two months ago which also finds that a majority of US Catholics support gay marriage. I guess you must also be accusing all those Catholics of secularism, along with the 2 in 3 Catholics who supported gay marriage in Spain, etc.

I don’t mean to offend you inocente in any of this, but secularism definatly comes to my mind when Catholics or even Christians support same sex marriage, along with a bit of ignorance maybe.

I don’t know what else it could be other than secularism/ignorance.

Mainly because It doesn’t make sense how Christians could conclude that the sexual acts of homosexuality are moral within a religious perspective based on sacred scripture.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.** Under no circumstances can they be approved.**

Like I previously said, please google “Would Jesus support gay marriage.”

See how many you get that say “Yes” compared to those that say “No.” Infact could you please link any chrsitian articles you find that claim “Yes.”

Like I said before, superficially same sex marriage looks like the christian thing to advocate, because it’s in a severe missunderstanding of Christian “Love.” but fundamentally it is the work of the father of all lies to decieve the children of good will and spread sexual immorality amongst us like never before.

Fornication and promiscuity are advocated through the same reasoning as the sexual acts of homosexuality are, which is “If both consent to it and it’s not hurting anyone else than whats wrong with it?”

Thus the father of all lies convinces people that sexual immorality is no longer immoral and the truth is rejected and our lust is embraced.

It is the work of satan that is trying to tell you that love is all the same so that you will indirectly include “Love of Eros” in Chirsitan love. It is his lies that are trying to make out that we are denying homosexuals true love.

We are not denying homosexuals true love, the most important kind of love, the only love that bears any real fruit and that is the “Love of Agape.” We should all aspire to the “Love of Agape” Including homosexuals and no one should deny such love for anyone. But it is not an easy love, it involves the rejection of self. Not the embracement of self through lust.

We are denying homosexuals corrupted love, the love that satan has to offer us, the one that is filled with lust, the one that is filled with selfishness and self gratification, it is the love that bears the sour fruit in which humans desire to be drunk on, there is nothing selfless about it and it leaves us for despair when missused, it’s the “Love of Eros.”

Love of Agape: Agape is used in the biblical passage known as the “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13, and is described there and throughout the New Testament as sacrificial love. Agape is also used in ancient texts to denote feelings for one’s children and the feelings for a spouse, and it was also used to refer to a love feast. It can also be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard. Agape was used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God.

Love of Eros: is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[wittgenstein]

Ummmmmm! Attack the mote in your own eye first! * Worry about your OWN sins before attacking other people’s sins! That is why people hate homos when they are not homos. Very easy to do and very weiner! (Very unChristian!!! and very human. Diverting attention from you to others.) NEVER forget what the Bible teaches, love the sinner (yourself ) and hate the sin!

• I am married. I love my wife. But as Jimmy Carter admitted I lust in my heart.

 

[josh987654321]

Ummmmmm! Attack the mote in your own eye first! Worry about your OWN sins before attacking other people’s sins! That is why people hate homos when they are not homos. Very easy to do and very weiner! (Very unChristian!!! and very human. Diverting attention from you to others.) NEVER forget what the Bible teaches, love the sinner (yourself ) and hate the sin!

Directed at me? and if so could you please elaborate, what in my post gave you that idea?