Come on Voile, your too smart for me to believe that. I was saying that homosexual sex comes with some much additional rates of destruction compared with monogamous hetero sex that it requires a very heavy weight argument to justify it.
Therefore, according to your criteria, homosexual female relationships are to be preferred than heterosexual ones. For I cannot see what diseases female pairs can get if they did not mess around with males before. Would that be a sufficient condition to bless faithful lesbian love? If not, why not?
History is full of sin, mistakes, and every form of moral insanity imaginable. What we have to do is carefully weed through our moral principles and slowly weed out actual injustices. That is very easy to do with Women's rights. It is so far proving impossible to do with homosexual behavior.
If is is very easy, I wonder why it took millennia to realize that. That for sure should give us a pause when we contemplate the moral reliability, or intellectual capabilities, of so-called traditions.
By the way, when you say "impossible to do with homosexuals", are you referring to Iran and Uganda, or are you including Europe as well?
That most certainly is not the only ones who agree with me. By far the majority of Christina denominations do not perform homosexual marriages. In addition to that many of the popular votes given by state deny homosexual marriage but in many cases one liberal judge defies the will of the people and does what ever he wants anyway.
Well, that did not work in Ireland, a stronghold of the Catholics, apparently. As I said, you are losing. A couple of generations, and you will be remembered as the bad guys
.
The same way people who opposed interracial marriages are remember today. I seriously hope that in Heaven you will be vindicated against the bad press, lol.
BTW is there only one denomination in Sweden?
If we count the members of the church of Sweden, then yes. The rest are minorities. There are some Episcopalians and Muslims that do not agree, obviously.
How is the majority of a country which in your own words is secular (or the small amount of Christians) in that nation relevant to anything?
Well, you reminded me that its history is molded by Christianity and we have a cross on our flag.
But even if it was not the case, would that be a sufficient condition for the few Christians left to abandon what you consider so important?
Does this denomination practice this universally?
How long have they done so?
Not long ago. A few decades after women could vote. Some say they are opportunistic, but in this case you would be left choosing between inconsistent and opportunistic Christians.
Your call.
Marriage has two traditional justifications.
1. That it is the intention of various God's. In the most prolific example. The union between a man and a women was represent the union between Christ and the church. The bible constantly refers to the church as bride and Christ as the groom.
The problem here is that we are speaking of different brides. What church are you talking about? There must be thousands. Lucky Jesus that He can choose from so many brides. Or does He support polygamy?
2. Now if that justification is out you only have only a social Darwinian justification for marriage. In that in the general permanent pair bond between a man and a women was optimal for human flourishing.
Nope. I do not appeal to nature for my opinions, obviously. If I did, I would limit heterosexual marriage in order to avoid the obvious evils of overpopulation.
The justification that whatever is true between a man and a women is justified between members of the same sex contradicts both. Your getting the burden mixed up here. Your going against historical tradition, all manner of theological faiths, making claims to rights, demanding legal recognition of a practice that comes with a massive increase in human suffering in countless categories. It is not my burden to justify preventing it, it is your burden to justify it. You want to rectify history I am fine with that but you better have a very good argument in this case.
The same historical tradition that limited women rights, burned witches and allowed slavery for millennia? I think it is pretty obvious that it is totally discredited. I wonder how you can take it seriously.
And again, here in North Europe we do not appear to be on the verge of chaos and anarchy. So, all those evils are just a figment of your imagination that can easily be proven wrong.
Yes I have evidence. I am so sick of posting it I encourage you to search my recent posts.
Your recent posts? That is not evidence, I am afraid. And as you said, traditionally gay marriages are very recent, so what kind of evidence can you have gathered?
They might appeal to a wider and more rebellious section of the population by they erode their credibility as representatives of a moral system which they so flagrantly contradict. popularity is not equal with credibility.
So, your historical record of popularity against gay marriage is not equal to credibility? I am afraid, you are constantly contradicting yourself.
They profess to follow and represent the biblical god yet they completely contradict his commands. I can't make it any simpler than that.
True. Our church allows also to work on the Sabbath and eat shrimps without risking to get stoned to death. They must really believe in the wrong God. Lucky us.
BTW, the NT prohibits the marriage between Christians and not-Christians, too. Why don't you make the same noise about that?
Again let me state I was not making a theological argument here. I have done so elsewhere.
I am a naturalist. Theology = Leprechaunology for me. You should go all theological with your fellow Christians in North Europe. You could impress me by reaching an agreement. Until that day, I will chalk out your theological arguments about gays in the same way I chalk out theological arguments concerning the sex of the angels.
Ultimately you have make up your own mind because you will have to answer to a God who knows the fact of the matter if he exist. However let me give a few scriptures.
I have to answer to God? Which one? Oh the Baptist/Muslim version, I guess. There is no God. I would start getting used to the idea, if I were you. And if there were one, you might have to respond to Him too, if He does not look like Jesus.
For the record: veiled remarks about my future reports to the almighty are perceived by me as clear signs that I am winning an argument.
Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 1,855 helpful votes
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV / 1,184 helpful votes
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Romans 1:26-28 ESV / 890 helpful votes
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 827 helpful votes
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
I am not going to get into the applications between covenants here but you cannot simultaneous claim that what God has pronounced a death sentence in the past for he now sanctifies as Holy.
Like stoning shrimps eaters, wood collectors on the Sabbath, prohibiting women to talk in Church, prescriptions about selling a daughter as a sex slave, forbidding Church visits to people with impaired vision, tolerating slavery, etc. ? I am sure that is very holy to stone shrimps eaters to death. Those things are indeed disgusting.
Is that really your source of objective morality?
The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. History demonstrates that opinions are like pendulums that swing too far one way then to far the other way.
Yes, we have learned from history that slavery is wrong and that women have rights. You can learn a lot from bad examples. Actually, nobody cared about the historical record.
But what puzzles me is that you care about history. You always make that example that if some evil force changes the world, then what people believe during that regime might very well be wrong. So, what makes you think that what people believed in history is right? What makes you believe that the regime in place in the last millennia makes it right just for being shared by everyone?
Ok, You did not defend homosexuality you instead glued into onto heterosexuality and demanded that both sink or swim together without any justification.
Defending homosexuality is like defending gravity. Both are natural things. And if someone is only attracted by members of the same sex without having any choice in that matter (unless you think you can choose your sexual orientation), I do not see any reason to prevent them to marry.
So your twelve year old who has a crush a crush on her 40 year old scum bag gym teacher should be allowed to marry him? We all discriminate, we are only debating where the line should be. Anyone who actually makes laws that make use of these imaginary blanket moral ambiguities would the maximum immorality possible.
If she were 18 years old, I do not see what I can do. For sure, I would not try to prohibit marriages generally because of that.
Maybe you heard that before: we are talking of grown ups here.
Of course your not a moral realist, you have no source for actual moral facts, duties, or laws. That is a poor defense of anything except anarchy or nihilism.
Lucky me. I could have ran the risk of having a source that at a certain point in time approved slavery and genocide....and the stoning of Swiss chocolate cookies bakers on the Sabbath.
No one should reject anything for the sole reason of it being historically prohibited. However if we are overturning 5000 years of moral conclusions we need much better reasons than we have been given here.
Therefore, if the nazi would have established a 5000 years old Empire, would we need a lot of work to establish that there is something suboptimal with their moral system?
How do I demonstrate any moral fact to one who denies they exist. There is no common ground. However I can get close. Homosexual behavior increases human suffering at far higher rates than heterosexuality, yet it completely lacks the justification or necessity heterosexuality does. That is as close as I can get to proof who denies moral truth actually exists.
The only people who suffer are the homosexuals and the bigots when they notice that people, like in Ireland, do not buy their Biblical Scholarship, or things that share the same acronym.
A Chesterton used to divided purposes cannot stand. It is I hope, far beneath you to compare the evidence and argumentation for God with that for bigfoot and the tooth fairy. And I do not have to a dozen posts to even highlight how many that is absurd and intellectual disingenuous. You want to defend homosexuality by picking on Chesterton or comparing biblical faith to absurdities just demonstrates exactly what I have claimed about homosexual argumentation. You want to back up and take another run at it?
Fairies, Apollo and Bigfoot have the same evidence of existing as your God. The rest, is a matter of preference, and accidents of birth. Therefore, resting a moral case on something that has no evidence of existing is a dead end.
Ciao
- viole
