High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case

[JoStories]

This deserves both a round of applause and my deepest sympathies. I am so, so sorry for your loss.

Thank you skeptic.

 

[JoStories]

Where did I say you did so? Please quote me.

I said you denied an entire class of people (which includes the majority of sciences greatest scholars) because they merely believed and defended the bible. I also pointed out that your suggestion that Christian apologist consensus is that homosexuals caused aids. I am aware of none that do, even if some do they are a vast minority. What we do say is in fact an undeniable fact. Homosexuality greatly increases the spread of aids and many other problems which is by far the more effectual claim between the two. IOW everything you stated in your opening I believe was in fact wrong.

The massive increase in rates is not confined to that age group btw. It may be much higher that group because it contains the more sexually active and less cautious but they are not causal, it is the very act it's self that is the cause in almost all cases and categories.


I did not suggest that two gay people cannot acquire children. I said their being homosexual reduces the chances that they will have children and absolutely eliminates the chance they will have any children in the traditional sense of the family. These all cause an erosion often overall family unit. I specifically pointed out adoption specifically to prevent you from wasting your time by doing exactly what you did and mistakenly pointing out while the patient has suffered massive injuries you know of a band aid available.

This a classic mistake. I am not talking about total damage. I am talking about massive increasing the rate with not increasing the justification of a behavior. There are 96% straights to 4% gays, but that 4% is producing far more than it's share of misery and does not produce it's share of net gain or necessity. There is no necessity to homosexual sex what so ever. The only justification that exists is that 4% of us want to do it. Last time I checked the fact you want something does not make it true, right, or legal. Especially when that 4% that lack sufficient justification cause many many more times than 4% of increases in suffering. Pointing out group that includes 96% of people produce more of X than a group who includes 4% is irrelevant in this case and intellectually bankrupt in any similar case.

We are not debating what our opinions are. What I think it is of little relevance. What can be sufficiently justified (or what can't be in any rational sense of the word) is of importance. Arguments are what matter in a debate not my your or my preference. Our votes may not matter in a few decades. Islam is being allowed to infiltrate the west and because of the rise of secularism western nations now lack the moral will they had in the 40's which can stop that kind of tyranny. If Islam does manage that feat your vote will no longer even be taken. Even before this happens my vote may be negated by a liberal judge anyway which has occurred in many states in the US. The popular vote was against homosexual marriage yet some liberal judge decided he did not care what the people want.

The Christian end scenario for this world is bleak, we just did not know when it would occur. With the moral insanity and everything that it produces that has resulted from the rise of secularism we can now see the beginning of the end and it's horrific form. Soon the voting privileges that were granted to you (by the blood of Christians in most cases if you live in the west) will no longer be relevant.

You and I are done robin. As others have pointed out, you're repeating the same erroneous material and frankly speaking, I tire of your inane rhetoric. Carry on with with bigotry and yes, that is what you are. A homophobic bigot.

 

[Akivah]

Frankly, that you disapprove doesn't really matter. SSM shall become law and we shall have the same rights. It's about time.

If Roe v. Wade is any indication, any Supreme Court action will be restricted and contained over time. People do wake up and correct their errors.

 

[1robin]

I can tell you how meaningful my marriage to my late partner was, despite she was a wife to me alone and not in reality, due to people like you.

What? There are not enough people like me to have deprived you of anything. If it was denied you it took massive amounts of people from all manner of groups to prohibit it. Assuming you are referring to some popular democratic vote issue. If you are appealing to a democratic process then the process function as it should and you lack faith in any higher authority than that process, and so in your world view the highest possible moral authority function exactly as it should. I am not sure what was at stake here. Are you saying you are a woman and you were with a woman which you were merely denied the legal designation of wife for by which others must refer to her, and (since you lack faith in any higher authority) that your personal taste is a higher authority than the highest and most benevolent form of that earthly authority functioned correctly but you condemn it al because you were denied what you want? I do not understand your exact complaint. If your wife was a wife to you who cares what the government thought about it, you still had it in every important way. BTW it seems the gay community is far more interested in making no one can prohibit them from doing a thing that they actually cared about doing it in the first place. Almost everywhere I have checked the turn out of gay couples to be married was extremely underwhelming in the places where it was legal. What do you mean by late as well, deceased or gone?

I met her about 1985. We talked occasionally as I traveled to my various assignments and then began talking every night. Just like any other couple on the planet, we dated for a while.

I will grant that most couples do date and in that specific regard homosexuality may be very similar but being similar in that way is irrelevant in my argument, they are dissimilar to the extreme in the relevant ways in which I have commented on.

I took her to the movies, knots berry farm, dinner, the usual date stuff. Over time, we feel in love. Deeply in love. She was my soul mate. I loved that woman with every breath I took. I bought a home in tonner canyon, in brea, Ca., just like every other couple. I read her entire series of books by David eddings and Tolkien as she loved fantasy. She taught me to oil paint and sculpt. We would spend entire nights on the beach in Santa Ana and cry for joy for the love we felt, watching the moon rise and the tide come in. and because of people like you, she died. I lost her so young and I died the day she did, at least psychologically. I wept inconsolably as I scattered her ashes out to sea, a kind of sadness that comes from the depth of the soul. To this day, I remain single and celibate as there will ever be another wife like she. She made my life brighter just by being herself. And if you can't understand that, I honestly feel sorry for you.

I can understand that, no argument was made about my understanding as it was not relevant in the least. Your argument above is basically that since you liked X (and despite your being able to have access to X unrestricted) your bent completely out of shape because the rest of the world did not allow you to have your way in one particular and secondary issue. This is where homosexual defenses always take place. No where on the same map as the destination called justification. It is on a map where the destinations of sensationalism, the condemnation of anyone who sincerely disagrees with you (and who have the vastly superior argument), and attempts to justify one thing by condemning another or vice versa dominate the horizon in all direction. I have lost a mother, a girlfriend, and male friends. I have wept for most. I can even use those stories if I was to craft them a little to condemn all manner of things. I do not do so because good theater is not an argument, and good arguments do not require theatrics, appeals to sensationalism, and false condemnations. Before I was saved I in fact used the pain of my mothers death to hate God, hate the Christian message, and resent anyone who held to them in public. I was not an atheist, I was an anti-theist. I finally matured, was saved and was ashamed of nursing my pain and weaponizing it for so many years.

I am sorry you lost this person, however I will not have you use it in a way which implicates me in some manner when I had no roll in a single event you describe.

If you want sympathy or understanding then fine, but drop using your story as an accusation of sorts.

BTW from personal experience atleast as tragic (in in all likelihood much worse in almost every category) no natural solution exists to a problem like you have and I had. I tried every solution known to man for emotional pain, some of them did treat the symptoms but came at a price, none cured it. Only Christ took away that pain completely. I knew my first moment of actual peace, complete forgiveness, absolute unconditional love, deliverance from several destructive habits, instantly had virtually lost my fear of death, etc.....the first instant I accepted Christ. Those are commodities no one lacks need of and only one source exist for. Also from personal experience and years of counseling many of us nurse and hold on to our pain. We do so for many reasons, sometimes because we feel to stop feeling the pain to let that person go or forget them, it becomes part of our identity to part with it is to part with part of ourselves (even if a malignant part), we use it as excuse for feeling persecuted, etc...... However it only makes us sick if held on to too, can kill us, and can ruin lives and relationships if held on to tightly. I do not pretend to know exactly what you are doing but I am throwing things out there from personal experience in case any of them help. My pain ruined over a decade of my life and if I had not found God it probably would have killed me before I was 35.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If Roe v. Wade is any indication, any Supreme Court action will be restricted and contained over time. People do wake up and correct their errors.

Fanatics that wish to push their crazy worldview on others often get their way after a while but then end in a violent resistance. See WWII.

 

[1robin]

You and I are done robin. As others have pointed out, you're repeating the same erroneous material and frankly speaking, I tire of your inane rhetoric. Carry on with with bigotry and yes, that is what you are. A homophobic bigot.

Crap!!!! I knew this was coming, the moment I read your first response. As soon as it is detected that the other party is not going to believe what the former party wants them to the mask of civility comes off and the fangs come out in these kinds of issues from your side. I am mad at myself more than anyone, you probably can't help what you did but I knew very well what would happen, heck I used to do it myself before I was born again and gave up all that pain and the mentality of being a victim. It was entirely too exhausting. Your position is all but 100% emotional and so I was expecting you to burn out early. Emotionally based positions burn to brightly to sustain being challenged for long and at the same time burn too dimly to persuade to any extent. I wish you had given up before you linked me with all the misery in your life. I will not report your flagrant violation of forum rules here. We end where we begin, your pain being poured out in virulence against a person who merely holds a sincere belief different from yours. You began by calling me a racist without a single reasons and end by calling me a bigot, but since you were unknown I gambled I might be wrong. I have never written nor past a law in my life and had no roll in anything that made you this bitter. Hope you find some peace someday, I finally did and I jealously guard it.

 

[1robin]

It's not a defence of homosexuality: it's an attack on the logic of your argument. You are saying that we have to somehow "demonstrate that homosexuals deserve the right to marry". I challenged you to "demonstrate that women that women deserve the right to vote", which is the exact same logical argument you are attempting to use. If you cannot do that, then you can see how your argument is flawed.

That is reversing the order burdens occur in. Your position makes a claim to a right, and demand for protected status of a group. It is your burden to supply justification for claims to knowledge and demands for validation. This is always the case in debate. However it is a thousand times more the case when what you claim should be protected by law produces increases in human suffering in such a staggering amount and lacks the sufficient justifications heterosexual marriages do.

I am going to a be a little short with you for a second, so hang in there for a minute. I have learned to stay out of homosexual debates because every one I have ever had, or ever seen end the same exact way. The person defending homosexuality gets frustrated when either they do not make their case or the other person will not change their mind, so far that has been the case in every argument I am aware of (and that has been quite a few), the one defending biblical marriage either sees the melt down coming and gets away or misses the window and gets all the venom, blame, and vile insults the defender can generate without their own destruction. Giving that this always is the case IME I had decided to leave the argument to it's own misery and got involved with this one without realizing it. Once in, I felt it would be rude to get out without giving the person a fair shot. Without fail the person detected that my mind would not change and poured out as much vengeance against me as they could muster, in this context. So my patience is a little worn and here I am going to simply re-state that it is your burden and I will not allow it to be shifted.

What another poster just said has so disgusted me that I am going to back out of this thread for the moment. I will attempt to come back at some point and not leave you hanging. I know you from the past and never recall you previously melting down on me, broke ranks, abandon civility, and attempted to make me the object of any personal pain you may have felt. And so I want to take a break here and give you a fair shot soon. I might be tempted to be more rude than you deserve in my present mind set. So let me hopefully pick this up after a break. I normally have a far higher tolerance for others imperfections (even if at my own expense) than currently because I have been up for almost 48 hours and have been working most of that time.

 

[JoStories]

If Roe v. Wade is any indication, any Supreme Court action will be restricted and contained over time. People do wake up and correct their errors.

That might be true however to date, it has not. If it ever is, the country will, of course have to revert to back alley abortions by hacker job doctors, which, if I understand you correctly, is exactly what you would like to see. Women butchered by charlatans because they-the women-have no other options. But that's ok...you will have returned us to the days when women had no rights, were subservient to men, etc. do carry on.

 

[JoStories]

I can tell you how meaningful my marriage to my late partner was, despite she was a wife to me alone and not in reality, due to people like you. I met her about 1985. We talked occasionally as I traveled to my various assignments and then began talking every night. Just like any other couple on the planet, we dated for a while. I took her to the movies, knots berry farm, dinner, the usual date stuff. Over time, we feel in love. Deeply in love. She was my soul mate. I loved that woman with every breath I took. I bought a home in tonner canyon, in brea, Ca., just like every other couple. I read her entire series of books by David eddings and Tolkien as she loved fantasy. She taught me to oil paint and sculpt. We would spend entire nights on the beach in Santa Ana and cry for joy for the love we felt, watching the moon rise and the tide come in. and because of people like you, she died. I lost her so young and I died the day she did, at least psychologically. I wept inconsolably as I scattered her ashes out to sea, a kind of sadness that comes from the depth of the soul. To this day, I remain single and celibate as there will ever be another wife like she. She made my life brighter just by being herself. And if you can't understand that, I honestly feel sorry for you.

I want to thank those that liked the story of my love for my late wife. And to those who wrote disparaging remarks....you know who you are....I cannot say what I would like to, but being exmilitary and having quite an extensive vocabulary when it comes to vulgarity, I would be willing to wager you can figure it out. And do have a delightful day as well....sarcasm if your bigoted mind is too closed to figure that out.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am going to a be a little short with you for a second, so hang in there for a minute. I have learned to stay out of homosexual debates because every one I have ever had, or ever seen end the same exact way. The person defending homosexuality gets frustrated when either they do not make their case or the other person will not change their mind, so far that has been the case in every argument I am aware of (and that has been quite a few), the one defending biblical marriage either sees the melt down coming and gets away or misses the window and gets all the venom, blame, and vile insults the defender can generate without their own destruction.

As I recall our last bout didn't end this way. It ended when I realized that you didn't care about facts or arguments. I very coldly and logically refuted all of your arguments and even explained in detail why your own arguments were wrong or biased on several levels. And you responded by simply stating the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over again. It is highly frustrating when you argue against someone who is clearly in the wrong, clearly has lost the argument and yet maintains they have not while continuing to make the same points that have already been refuted as if they were some golden truth.

 

[OneLife]

The family law of humanity.

If we were family and humane would we inflict such cruelty on other people as to prevent them from being together if they so wished?
Forcing our bigotry on others shows we have lost our humanity...but thats just my humble opinion

 

[Akivah]

As soon as it is detected that the other party is not going to believe what the former party wants them to the mask of civility comes off and the fangs come out in these kinds of issues from your side. I am mad at myself more than anyone, you probably can't help what you did but I knew very well what would happen, heck I used to do it myself before I was born again and gave up all that pain and the mentality of being a victim. It was entirely too exhausting. Your position is all but 100% emotional and so I was expecting you to burn out early. Emotionally based positions burn to brightly to sustain being challenged for long and at the same time burn too dimly to persuade to any extent. I wish you had given up before you linked me with all the misery in your life. ..... We end where we begin, your pain being poured out in virulence against a person who merely holds a sincere belief different from yours. You began by calling me a racist without a single reasons and end by calling me a bigot, but since you were unknown I gambled I might be wrong.

Good post. She already claimed that I support genocide because I disagree with her opinion. And the racist and bigot stuff too.

 

[Akivah]

That might be true however to date, it has not. If it ever is, the country will, of course have to revert to back alley abortions by hacker job doctors, which, if I understand you correctly, is exactly what you would like to see.

Nope, as usual you have no clue what my opinions are but go instantly to the worst thing you can think of. I'm not going to talk about abortion here, since it is out of topic. I merely brought it up as a comparison of another controversial topic that the Supreme Court ruled on, that didn't turn out to be the end.

Women butchered by charlatans because they-the women-have no other options. But that's ok...you will have returned us to the days when women had no rights, were subservient to men, etc. do carry on.

You just love strawmen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For some reason, I really feel like rubbing it in that it is inevitable that, probably by the mid-point of this century, resistance against same sex marriage will be on the fringes of society, its only rightful place, along with those who oppose interracial marriages, women's rights, and a desegregated society. "Hate the sin, love the sinner," will be viewed on par as claims of "loving black people, even though god made them inferior," and saying "I don't agree with it," will be on par with saying you don't agree with any other relationship, which requires a damn good reason to say you are opposed to a relationship, and religious reasons tend to not cut it in that area, and tend to make you look like an ******* who abuses their religion.
Just a couple hundred years ago it was simply unthinkable for non-property owners and women to vote; allowing those groups to vote would cause the downfall of society. Every reason used to support those positions have been pushed aside, and there is little tolerance for such positions in society today. Very soon there will be little tolerance for opposing same sex marriage, and all the "doomsday" sayers will be proven wrong.

 

[1robin]

Sounds like having sex with men is a risky activity. Should we restrict marriage to lesbians only?

Actually that was only for one aspect of the negative impact. Women homosexuals do normally produce lower increases in suffering over heterosexual women, relative to population size. In most areas they are lower rates but they still increase suffering in many categories to levels which the "gains" of lesbianism do not justify. But my point is about a behavior in general, subdividing it into an infinite number of subgroups would be impractical to discuss.

If everyone were doctors, we'd all starve quickly with nobody to grow our food. We should prohibit people from becoming doctors - medicine is unnatural.

Typical, no defense of homosexuality, simply an attack on something else. Homosexuality must stand or fall on it's own, it cannot glue it's self to any other of the trillions of aspects of human activity and demand they all fall or stand together. I said homosexuality erodes the family unit, and they do. Since that fact was denied I had to amply the example to illuminate the argument. The amplification was not the argument. I do not entertain hypotheticals, the world as it is, is vexing enough. I will give you props for knowing what movie that was from.

The justification of homosexuality must be found within homosexuality and not in another behavior. Your client is not innocent even if you could find 1 millions other guilty of something else. Theft is not ok even if you said jay walking or lying was just fine.

In over a hundred debates I have only seen 3 argument types defending homosexuality.

1. It should be legal because someone likes it.
2. It should be protected by law because something else (and the something else is never an equality with homosexuality).
3. Homosexuality should be accepted and anyone who does not agree is homophobic and therefor evil.

All three are devoid of any merit and the third is disgusting and hypocritical. This last one you have not used to the best of memory.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is reversing the order burdens occur in. Your position makes a claim to a right, and demand for protected status of a group. It is your burden to supply justification for claims to knowledge and demands for validation. This is always the case in debate. However it is a thousand times more the case when what you claim should be protected by law produces increases in human suffering in such a staggering amount and lacks the sufficient justifications heterosexual marriages do.

If it is a burden that must be met, then please show how the burden is met for women's votes. How do you determine that women deserve the right to vote? It shouldn't be a difficult request.

I am going to a be a little short with you for a second, so hang in there for a minute. I have learned to stay out of homosexual debates because every one I have ever had, or ever seen end the same exact way. The person defending homosexuality gets frustrated when either they do not make their case or the other person will not change their mind, so far that has been the case in every argument I am aware of (and that has been quite a few), the one defending biblical marriage either sees the melt down coming and gets away or misses the window and gets all the venom, blame, and vile insults the defender can generate without their own destruction. Giving that this always is the case IME I had decided to leave the argument to it's own misery and got involved with this one without realizing it. Once in, I felt it would be rude to get out without giving the person a fair shot. Without fail the person detected that my mind would not change and poured out as much vengeance against me as they could muster, in this context. So my patience is a little worn and here I am going to simply re-state that it is your burden and I will not allow it to be shifted.

I've not shifted any burden - I am making a point about the logic of your argument. Can you or can you not demonstrate how you determine women deserve the right to vote? If you can show how that burden could be met, perhaps I would stand a better chance at answering the burden you have placed on me.

What another poster just said has so disgusted me that I am going to back out of this thread for the moment. I will attempt to come back at some point and not leave you hanging. I know you from the past and never recall you previously melting down on me, broke ranks, abandon civility, and attempted to make me the object of any personal pain you may have felt. And so I want to take a break here and give you a fair shot soon.

In that case, you may be unfortunately disappointed in some of the comments I make further down in that same post. But what you must understand is that, as far as I and many others are concerned, the issue here is not merely a case of civil disagreement. It is a case of you making assertions and claims about something of which you have a very clearly skewed perception of. You seem to think of homosexuality in purely sexual terms, and fail to identify that homosexuality isn't merely about a preference for sexual partners, but a preference for life partners. We are not debating the right for homosexuals to have sex. We are debating the right for homosexuals to marry. We are debating whether or not it is right for couples of the same gender to be allowed to have their relationships legally recognized and protected by law. I have said this repeatedly, and yet you continue to define homosexuality as a "behaviour", as if it were some form of bad habit. Your have repeatedly (and at great length) constructed strawman arguments against our positions, extrapolating arguments that don't exist for you to knock down. You have not come across as an honest debater who has considered this subject carefully. You come across as a thoughtless individual, fixated on sex rather than relationships, who is less determined to listen to opposing points of view than you are listening to the voices in your own head that tell you what you want to believe. I have been extremely patient and respectful with many posters on these forums who have done this, but by comparison your logic and the lengths you go to to twist and distort the issue make any others I have read seem like nothing in comparison. The more I read from you on this issue, the more convinced I become of your pathological inability to really understand this issue, in spite of the fact that you clearly believe your position is extremely well thought-out, seemingly only because it is particularly verbose.

I might be tempted to be more rude than you deserve in my present mind set. So let me hopefully pick this up after a break. I normally have a far higher tolerance for others imperfections (even if at my own expense) than currently because I have been up for almost 48 hours and have been working most of that time.

I'll be ready and waiting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In over a hundred debates I have only seen 3 argument types defending homosexuality.

1. It should be legal because someone likes it.
2. It should be protected by law because something else (and the something else is never an equality with homosexuality).
3. Homosexuality should be accepted and anyone who does not agree is homophobic and therefor evil.

All three are devoid of any merit and the third is disgusting and hypocritical. This last one you have not used to the best of memory.

If those are the only arguments you've seen, then you haven't been paying attention.

... and if you think that the argument is about whether homosexuality itself should be legal, then you REALLY haven't been paying attention. At least in the West, that matter is settled: people have the right to be gay. Same-sex adoption is settled: gay couples are allowed to adopt and raise children. Same-sex marriage is increasingly becoming a settled matter, too: anywhere in North America or Europe where it isn't legal already, it will be soon.

The only questions that aren't settled are the smaller side questions; questions like "can an adoption agency refuse a same-sex couple on the basis of their orientation?" or "should a town clerk be allowed to refuse to do his job by denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple?"

 

[gsa]

That is reversing the order burdens occur in. Your position makes a claim to a right, and demand for protected status of a group. It is your burden to supply justification for claims to knowledge and demands for validation. This is always the case in debate. However it is a thousand times more the case when what you claim should be protected by law produces increases in human suffering in such a staggering amount and lacks the sufficient justifications heterosexual marriages do.

I am going to a be a little short with you for a second, so hang in there for a minute. I have learned to stay out of homosexual debates because every one I have ever had, or ever seen end the same exact way. The person defending homosexuality gets frustrated when either they do not make their case or the other person will not change their mind, so far that has been the case in every argument I am aware of (and that has been quite a few), the one defending biblical marriage either sees the melt down coming and gets away or misses the window and gets all the venom, blame, and vile insults the defender can generate without their own destruction. Giving that this always is the case IME I had decided to leave the argument to it's own misery and got involved with this one without realizing it. Once in, I felt it would be rude to get out without giving the person a fair shot. Without fail the person detected that my mind would not change and poured out as much vengeance against me as they could muster, in this context. So my patience is a little worn and here I am going to simply re-state that it is your burden and I will not allow it to be shifted.

What another poster just said has so disgusted me that I am going to back out of this thread for the moment. I will attempt to come back at some point and not leave you hanging. I know you from the past and never recall you previously melting down on me, broke ranks, abandon civility, and attempted to make me the object of any personal pain you may have felt. And so I want to take a break here and give you a fair shot soon. I might be tempted to be more rude than you deserve in my present mind set. So let me hopefully pick this up after a break. I normally have a far higher tolerance for others imperfections (even if at my own expense) than currently because I have been up for almost 48 hours and have been working most of that time.

Translation: All people who support rights for gay men and lesbians are completely irrational because I have determined that I won all arguments that I have ever had with them. I am going to take a break so that you can become more rational; I am usually able to tolerate your personal failings but I'm too tired to do so now.

Such humility these warriors for Christ display.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1. It should be legal because someone likes it.
2. It should be protected by law because something else (and the something else is never an equality with homosexuality).
3. Homosexuality should be accepted and anyone who does not agree is homophobic and therefor evil.

All three are devoid of any merit and the third is disgusting and hypocritical. This last one you have not used to the best of memory.

I don't think I have used any of those arguments. In fact I remember making an extremely long post explaining in intimate detail as to why none of those were my points and then explaining my points.

 

[1robin]

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?

It is amazing how few arguments and of poor quality the volumes of homosexuality's defense contain. They are all of the same 3 or 4 types and none work.

1. Lesbianism is destructive (and I have provided in what ways with data and rates) several times.
2. There is a huge portion of Lesbians who also have sex with males and are very promiscuous.
3. Something less destructed than another is not by default right. Theft is not good because murder cases more destruction.
4. I have never argued against any person caring about (loving) another, I have never even argued against them being partners. I have suggested that their sexual behavior and demands fro protected status under law lack sufficient justification.

Let's say that the cost of Lesbianism was 10,000 deaths per year, 100,000 people who's suffering drastically increased because of it, and 50 billion in medical expenses (a good portion of which is paid by non Lesbians). Is that balanced out by either they should get whatever they want, or it feels good?

I gave you a cost (which is probably low) - you supply the gains that compensate the cost.

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?

It depends on what equality your talking about. For example if it is voting rights. It was (and it is a reasonable idea) that only those with property are heavily invested in society and vote responsibly. If you mean inheritance right women had them in many societies for a long time. In fact now that I think about it women had all kinds of rights in all kinds of societies. In Sparta they had more rights that men in some cases, in Greece they right comparable to men, in some time period sin Rome and England they did so as well. However forgetting all this, it is easy to see that just as we still do today and should we take circumstances and make laws that apply to some and not to others. Ancient societies governed by those where the men hunted, the men built, the men were the tribal leaders it is easy to see how they viewed women and men differently (they are different). Also noticed that the time period where women's claims to equality was widespread and beginning to be acknowledged corresponds with Christianity. In men and women are in inherently not equal, only in God they find quality. IOW you question was far to simplistic, has countless exceptions, and glories faith in many ways.

Whether you agree or not please remember this simplistic fact. Secular groups while rejecting God and embracing Darwin have also embraced foundations only God can ground in any objective sense. They get rid of God but want the things of God.

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.

My point applied to where I live which is the epitome of voting rights. I don't know what your referring to about Ireland. We have never been the good guys. We are believers in a sea of rebellion. Our teacher and our leaders were murdered by the majority. BTW the bible says: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." Christ.

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.

What is the church of Sweden? That is not a denomination I have even heard of. What does an obscure demonization I have never heard of in a nation that composes .0004% of the total population doing a thing prove?

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?

I wan not aware of and did not mention your flag had a cross on it. I did not understand the rest of the above.

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.

I certainly agree that they bowed to popularity and not to their faith. That was my point. They bowed to the wrong God.

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?

The biblical definition of Church is the body of people who have been born again. The human definition of church is irrelevant.

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.

We are not over populated, everyone on earth could fit in a single county in the single state of California. That argument would not apply for a long time. Secondly nature does not respond to over population by turning gay. Third marriage it's self does not over populate anything. It slows it. Natures example of having sex with as many mates as possible does increase it. So you got the problem wrong and the solution wrong.

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.

Let me state again.

1. Being traditional does not mean being right.
2. Being consistently traditional does suggest that a whole lot of rational people thought it right.
3. So you may challenge any traditional view you want, you should do so, many are wrong. However if you want to overturn history and replace it with a behavior known to dramatically increase human suffering you must have very very good reasons. Where are they?

You have 3 options to ground morality.
1. Objective - God.
2. Subjective - Nature.
3. Completely made up - Your, popularity's, or the strongest group's; preference no matter how you dress it up.

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?

I gave CDC data far more lopsided than even I would have suspected.

So, your historical record of popularity against gay marriage is not equal to credibility? I am afraid, you are constantly contradicting yourself.

No, it is not equal to truth. So far you have not show it.

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.

It is a fact they are disobeying the commands given by the God they proses faith in if he does exist. Exactly what I said. Glad you concur. Next you state your own personal preference and use it to make a claim to knowledge. I do not concur. BTW the laws you refer to never applied to anyone beyond a single culture, have not applied to anyone in 2000 years, and had time specific circumstances and purposes which no longer apply. For example not eating pork is not even a moral principle, it concerned the lack of ability to cook pork hot enough to destroy the bacteria it contains. Please quote the verse where eating shrimp got someone stoned even in the laws which do not apply to us.

BTW, the NT prohibits the marriage between Christians and not-Christians, too. Why don't you make the same noise about that?

Funny you ask, I just last night saw the problems the prohibition would have averted. Two biblical characters were married. One a Christian and one either a Jew or a pagan. The Christian women kept making decisions based on here faith, simple and harmless decisions, here unbelieving husband got madder and madder because she was obeying God instead of him many times but in only the most benign ways. His anger led to wrath and his wrath to killing her.

BTW this was not a covenant law. It was something we should not do. And I know of hundreds of examples just in my life (one in which I was the atheist and she the Christian) every single one produced disaster of some kind. In my work certain standards use the word "should", meaning what it is good to do, and others use "shall", meaning what you must do. This verse is of the "should type". The same way we say a baby should not run with scissors not that doing so is illegal.

Another layer to this is that God also says that if the are married they should not spilt up if they have already been joined because of his provision of getting married. In most cases it causes problems on many levels but on occasion the Christian converts the mate. Look at the Duck commanders biography.

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.

If a pure naturalist (of the church of naturalism) then theology means presumptively dismissed, and a thing incapable of being evaluated. BTW if Theology = leprechaun-ology to you, how many Leprechaun threads are you in fighting against believing in them? Guess you mistakenly used the = sign here. You sure about that math degree?

I have to answer to God? Which one? Oh the Baptist/Muslim version, I guess.

What I said would be true each case. No matter which layer your in, in the sun, you will burn unless you have what negates the heat. BTW the Muslims say we believe in the same God. Bad metaphor all around.

There is no God.

Oh, a claim to certain knowledge. Your burned to prove. Even if true Everyone including Hitler's fate is exactly the same. No justice, only annihilation. "How embarrassing, how embarrassing" - Master Yoda. Can you name the movie.

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.

That is true. However I have made many many times more effort than is necessary to examine the evidence and God (Jesus is the defense attorney) is by far and away the best conclusion. Plus unlike secularism I had objective (but person) proof he is the one.

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.

I rarely make those remarks to anyone and only do so if what THEY asked makes it relevant. I guess most of these arguments have failed by your criteria.

My computer has slowed down I will split this up.