High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case

[Scott C.]

High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case - The Washington Post

Apart from constitutional protections and doing the right thing, another reason for legalizing same-sex marriage would be the avoidance of a legal catastrophe. Thoughts?

I believe that the entire US needs to be on the same page. Either gay marriage is or is not accepted. But, it needs to be the same in all states. I accept that states have the right to differ on issues and laws, but it doesn't make sense in all cases.

 

[1robin]

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.

Look at what you mistakes cause. I had to do through every single verse that contains the words shellfish, water, eat, stone, stoning, stoned, etc....... I searched hundreds of verses and could not find anything like what you said. After wasting a hour I am going to skip the rest of what was above.

Is that really your source of objective morality?

Since what contains being stoned for eating shrimp does not exist. The answer is NO. As for the OT, no it is not my source for morality beyond the deca-law.

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.

No we did not. History cannot tell anyone what is right and wrong unless you already know what is right. If you already know (or have the proper foundation for) that humans have rights then you can see from history what practices are contradictory to them. Secularists can do neither and so do exactly what your doing. Inventing moral line based on preference and once that is done then looking for a way to rationalizing them. History cannot tell anyone what should be done unless we already have a goal based in an objective foundation that transcends history.

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?

Really? A person who has told you they are almost obsessed with history and who's faith goes back past recorded history being interested in history surprises you? I cannot think of anything I said that resembles what you say I said. Your going to have to quote it.

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.

By that standard defending homosexuality is like defending murder. Murder a behavior resulting from genetics (you have ham strung your self here because you have previously eliminated the possibility of including "choice" here)

BTW why would a determinist argue for anything with someone, my actions are unchangeable in your world view.
Also gravity is a universal law, homosexuality is an exception.

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.

I said 12 and so she is not 18. Not that 18 is an objective standard. 12 years old is perfectly within the criteria you gave. So I am asking for your answer again.

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.

Quote me the verse where God instituted, approved, liked, recommended, etc... slavery. He found it to be a universal norm which humanity did approve, institute, and like which was impractical to instantly abolish, so he instead made the most benevolent rule on the face of the earth at the time to govern it until such time as it was practicable to abandon any allowance for it. Christian nations through primarily Christian blood are the only examples of a major nation self abolishing slavery for moral reasons.

Blaming God for what we created, he made far less odious than we ever have, and which his followers gave a sea of blood to stop is desperation.

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?

That would be easy since all of histories systems are suboptimal because they all contain imperfect humans and always will. However good luck with that.

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.

That is completely false. Hospitals and grave yards are full of people put there by diseases spread through gay behavior. Can you imagine how mush less suffering there would be just in the US if the 63% of new aids cases that were spread by homosexuals did not exist? Your ability to ignore the this massive human wreckage is frightening and hypocritical.

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.

I have had a good opinion of you and do not want it eroded by considering the mountains of blatant mistakes in you last two claims further. This level of wrongness in either is not ignorance it is intentional.

 

[1robin]

They don't. And you know this since it's been pointed out to you on practically every single thread about homosexuality that you've participated on in this forum.

But for some reason, you just keep repeating it over and over in different threads as if you're presenting something new.

Your statistics and your arguments have been reduced to rubbish many times over now. I wonder why you keep repeating them at this point.

They don't what? If you mean increase the rate at which AIDS spreads it has been proven by the CDC.


Hello Skeptical Thinker.

Unfortunately your post is going to serve as my exit from this thread and hopefully homosexual debates all together. Your just happened to be the next one after my decision to call it quits. Your a reasonable debater and are not guilty of all or possibly any of the reasons for my decision which follow:

Dear: @viole, @9-10ths_Penguin, @SkepticThinker, @JoStories, @ImmortalFlame, @Monk Of Reason, @gsa and any one else I have debated on homosexuality.

I quit.

1. The defense of homosexuality is an emotional one.

2. It is a position of pre-determined preference, once made, then rationalization is searched for.

3. Every single argument I have been exposed to in favor of homosexuality (Many hundreds)
are of only 3 or 4 types. I sincerely believe those 3 or 4 types are complete failures as
justifications for the costs of homosexuality.

4. I could go through each type and point out all that is wrong with each but as it would take thousands of words, and I have done so in the past I will spare you all that.

None of the above reasons have forced me to terminate debating this issue. The one that has is the next one.

5. All people have pain and resentment in their past. However in homosexual and to a lesser extent abortion debates they seem to bring it out in many people. I mistakenly said in a post that it does so in all who defend homosexuality. That was incorrect. Some can hold onto their civility. However many cannot. Most of you have done your best to defend what can't be defended in a civil manner.

A poster partially or completely blamed me for their pain and aimed it at me. Their pretense at civility (as so often happens) could not be maintained when I would not agree with them. Insults, blame, and assuming the role of aggrieved victim is a practice I know well, as I used to employ them against others, and as a Christian I have had them aimed at me. I overcame my pain and the misuse of it and will not be caught up in another's failure to do so (at times at least I am unwilling to).

I however bear no homosexual (even that poster) any ill will. I am simply following what are my sincere faith beliefs and secular reasoning to reach conclusions. I have never restricted in anyway a homosexual's ability to do anything, personally or by law. I merely examine the issue in a debate context and obey the law. That is all anyone may demand of another.

As for this thread best of luck

Note: My conclusion. No one has even slightly dented my arguments, but Skeptical Thinker did manage to challenge one or two of the many premises I used along the way. Most of you have been civil. That is all the credit my conscience will allow.

God Bless, see you in other threads and I apologize if I stopped here before I answered anyone's post.

Now you may begin congratulating each other for a job un-done at your leisure. Just kidding.

 

[metis]

The issue of religious teachings should not be directly reflected in American law since the 1st Amendment attempts to build at least somewhat of a wall between church & state. Therefore, the real issue is a matter of civil rights, and that could be played either way, but I would suggest there's really no secular argument that opposes it that actually "works", if one knows what I mean by that. IOW, it should be strictly a legal question, not a religious one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, since you're leaving the debate this is going to feel very hollow, but I still feel the need to respond to these last few shots you fired...

1. The defense of homosexuality is an emotional one.

No more than the defence of race or gender equality are. Homosexual relationships do no harm in society (in spite of what your warped perception of STD rates may indicate to you - you can't blame homosexuality for poor sexual hygiene), and gay and lesbian relationships are every bit as meaningful and conductive to society as heterosexual relationships and deserve recognition as such.

2. It is a position of pre-determined preference, once made, then rationalization is searched for.

Nonsense. I used to be very homophobic in my youth, but developing friendships with homosexuals throughout my teenage years and continuing into adulthood changed me dramatically, and I realized that their relationships were absolutely no less meaningful than our own. It disgusts me that people still feel they can dismiss the relationships and the lives that gay and lesbian couples build together as not being as worth acknowledging as heterosexual ones. My conclusion about homosexuality and the right to marry was one arrived at over many years of consideration and rationalization. Please don't ever dismiss it.

3. Every single argument I have been exposed to in favor of homosexuality (Many hundreds)
are of only 3 or 4 types. I sincerely believe those 3 or 4 types are complete failures as
justifications for the costs of homosexuality.

Only because you have an extremely skewed view of the argument. You have dodged and strawmanned practically every point I have made and every question I have asked you. The problem is not the arguments being made, but the fact that you are incapable of addressing them honestly. Your own perception warps the debate in your favour. You can see it for yourself in your responses to me: almost every argument you made against me was a strawman, and you failed to reasonably respond to a single argument I made. You know your position is indefensible, and yet you cling to it because you feel it is what your faith demands of you. That is all you have.

4. I could go through each type and point out all that is wrong with each but as it would take thousands of words, and I have done so in the past I will spare you all that.

To your credit, I feel you have done an excellent job in responding to as much as you can, and have been very generous with your explanations, but I fundamentally believe you operate under a fundamentally misconceived perception of homosexuality that prevents you from being able to see this issue in its true light. When we try to debate marriage, you try to turn the subject to sex. When we talk about love and commitment, you drag the subject back to sex. You have demonstrated it clearly with your position that homosexuality is a "behaviour" rather than what it is - a preference. If you cannot pull your head from the gutter and recognize what this issue is actually about: ALLOWING COUPLES WHO LOVE EACH OTHER SINCERELY THE RIGHT TO ENTER INTO A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED INSTITUTION AND HAVE THEIR LOVE ACKNOWLEDGED BY LAW AS BEING EQUAL TO THAT OF THE LOVE OF OTHERS - then perhaps it is best you leave this debate immediately, because there is no point in debating someone whose perception of so many other human beings is so low that they cannot pull their head from the gutter when talking about the heartfelt love those people share the commitments they wish to make to each other.

None of the above reasons have forced me to terminate debating this issue. The one that has is the next one.

5. All people have pain and resentment in their past. However in homosexual and to a lesser extent abortion debates they seem to bring it out in many people. I mistakenly said in a post that it does so in all who defend homosexuality. That was incorrect. Some can hold onto their civility. However many cannot. Most of you have done your best to defend what can't be defended in a civil manner.

It is difficult to remain civil when the person you are debating with is literally blaming homosexuals for STDs and telling them they don't deserve the same rights as others. Think about how people would react if you were making the exact same arguments about a gender or race. Even if the facts your dredged up to support your position were all 100% accurate, if they were levied at any other social, religious, gender or racial group, you would understand perfectly why the manner in which you use those facts and the implications and conclusions you reach from them might draw people's ire. You are simply not debating this honestly. You come from a place of vile hate and dehumanization, and the worst part is that you believe you are being civil. There is no civil way of saying that homosexuals don't deserve the right to marry because they spread disease. That's not a civil position. It is a disgusting, immoral distortion of reality.

A poster partially or completely blamed me for their pain and aimed it at me. Their pretense at civility (as so often happens) could not be maintained when I would not agree with them. Insults, blame, and assuming the role of aggrieved victim is a practice I know well, as I used to employ them against others, and as a Christian I have had them aimed at me. I overcame my pain and the misuse of it and will not be caught up in another's failure to do so (at times at least I am unwilling to).

Perhaps instead of making these kinds of statements, which come across as nothing but dismissive and patronizing, you could make some attempt to engage with their pain. Try to understand what they went through, and why they may feel that you are (at least indirectly) to blame for their pain. I saw no attempt at understanding. All I saw was you remaining stalwart in the face of their absolute honesty and simply dismissing it out of hand, asserting that they were just being emotional and not reasonable. Sometimes, there are good reasons why people feel pain, and good reasons why they may feel that someone who is telling them they deserve less rights than them may be a target of that pain.

I however bear no homosexual (even that poster) any ill will. I am simply following what are my sincere faith beliefs and secular reasoning to reach conclusions. I have never restricted in anyway a homosexual's ability to do anything, personally or by law. I merely examine the issue in a debate context and obey the law. That is all anyone may demand of another.

I feel this should be acknowledged and accepted by many on here too. I don't doubt your faith is sincere, and that you believe your reasoning is sound. I and many others see your reasoning, and your morality, as fundamentally misplaced. If we cannot come to terms with that, then stepping away from the debate would be in all of our best interests.

I know you most likely won't read this, but it's really more for my sake than anything else. A kind of exorcism, if you will. I hope you continue to at least think long and hard about this subject, and try to develop your position further in hopes of someday us all being able to hold common ground on it.

 

[McBell]

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.

Bold faced lie.
Before you put me on ignore I pointed out the fact that you have your whole argument backwards.

The fact is that Homosexuals do not have to defend homosexuality.
Those wanting to ban same sex marriage have to defend their stance of banning same sex marriage.
Of course, there is no legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage that would not also equally (or more so) apply to opposite sex marriage.

But then, I suspect the reason why you have completely ignored my pointing this out is because your backward presentation is all you have.
Sadly, it will not work in persuading the Supreme Court in upholding the bans on same sex marriage.

You are on the losing side.
You know it.
Sadly, you think this backwards nonsense you cling to will help you save face.

It hasn't and it won't.


Nice try though.

 

[viole]

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.

The costs of lesbianism? LOL. I think you are losing your cool and touch with reality. Have those lesbians that messed around with men been infected by homosexual men? Or have they, more plausibly, been infected by promiscuous heterosexual ones? Do you think heterosexuals are not promiscuous?

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.

The timeline of women getting their rights corresponds with Christianity? Women could vote and decide what to do with their bodies a few decades ago. Christianity is a couple of millennia years old, last time I checked. Can you see the difference between three orders of magnitude? I thought you studied some math in the past.

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.

Embracing Darwin? What is wrong with you? Many Christians embraced Darwin as well. Maybe not Baptists, but hey, you guys are just one of many.
And what do you mean with embracing foundations only God can ground in any objective sense? You mean support for slavery? Or killing kids for mocking a bald guy?

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.

I actually prefer the prophecy that whoever believe in that will be scorned and mocked. A self fulfilling prophecy. so to speak. LOL.

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?

Lutheran. And what has the amount of population to do with it? Don't tell me you are insisting on that old fallacy? By the way, what is the percentage of Southern Baptists within Christianity?

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.

Maybe I confused you with another baptist.

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

Prove it. And I will prove to you that the Westboro Baptists, and other nutcases, could prove that you are bowing to the wrong God as well.

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

Well, my ex fellow Christians in Sweden also say they are born again, whatever that means. And they still approve gay marriage. So, it is your word against theirs. Now what?
Are you going to show us Leviticus as proof that they are wrong?

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.

So, gay marriage should slow promiscuity for the same reasons. What makes you think it is not the case? Do you think that by opposing gay marriage, gays will stop being promiscuous, if they are promiscuous?Of course not. So, either you outlaw gay sex, or you kill all gays or you let them marry.

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?

That this increases human suffering is only a figment of your imagination. I have been at several gay marriages, and they are common place in North Europe. I cannot detect any major incovenience since we introduced them. The Muslims and the Episcopalians screamed about it. But we do not let our laws be influenced by people who believe in magical winged horses, or babbling Holy Ghosts, obviously.

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.

Can I choose 2? I would hate to ground morality on imaginary things. or things that tolerate slavery and command the killing of children and the ripping apart of pregnant women.

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

Do these data include the effects after introduction of gay marriage? Where are they?

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

What? your historical record of opposition to gays is not equal to truth? Cool.

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.

Who cares? If something is objectively wrong, it cannot be applied to even one single person. Or is your objective source of moral values not strong enough to say: nope, owning a human being is wrong. No matter what it costs, you shall not own another human being. Period. Nope, stoning someone for collecting wood on the Sabbath is wrong, I am the Almighty, I created the Universe and all the galaxies in it, I do not really care if you hold the Sabbath or not (why should I?), and even if I cared, you shall not kill anyone for lack of respect of my (ridiculous for an almighty) day of rest.

I really wonder why you insist defending the indefensible.

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.

Yes,The NT says clearly that this is a source of disaster, and I suspect you guys take those tales seriously. And you seem to agree with them.

So, why don't you guys scream equally loud abut it? Why don't I see rallies of people trying to protest against the marriage between Christians and not Christians?

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 do not usually rely on popularity when assessing the plausibility of a belief that has no objective evidence, do you? So yes, theology = leprechaunology = apollonology = fairyology = bigfootology = lochnessology = etc.

They are all the same. Figments of human imagination without a shred of evidence of being true. Giving more plausibility to one and not the other is obviously absurd.

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.

Well, you must believe in the same God. You are very close.

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.

There is no tooth fairy or Santa, either. Do I have a burden of proof?

So, do you believe in God in order to fulfill your innate need of justice? I think it makes sense. It is actually one of the many reason why I think the concept of God evolved naturally in the brains of social primates like us.

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.

My Hindu friend says the same. Show me what you got.

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.

These remarks are offensive. Not because they threaten me with an eternal fire (which is ridiculous, not offensive), but because they assume that I could be scared by something which is as plausible as the boogey man.


Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Now you may begin congratulating each other for a job un-done at your leisure. Just kidding.

To late.
You already beat everyone to flying home claiming victory.

 

[Paranoid Android]

High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case - The Washington Post

Apart from constitutional protections and doing the right thing, another reason for legalizing same-sex marriage would be the avoidance of a legal catastrophe. Thoughts?

Yes. Gay marriage should be allowed. Hetrosexuals who show so much concern should realize that they won't be affected. After all, there not gay, so they won't be asked to marry a same gender partner. U.S law is NOT built on what religion says, since the Counstituion is NOT considered scripture, but what can be argued using logic and reason to build there case. I have yet to hear an argument that is built on logic and reason against gay marriage.

 

[viole]

Look at what you mistakes cause. I had to do through every single verse that contains the words shellfish, water, eat, stone, stoning, stoned, etc....... I searched hundreds of verses and could not find anything like what you said. After wasting a hour I am going to skip the rest of what was above.

Since what contains being stoned for eating shrimp does not exist. The answer is NO. As for the OT, no it is not my source for morality beyond the deca-law.

Do you need to google or string search your Scriptures? I wonder how apologists were defending in the past, going through all pages?
I stand corrected, no stoning for shrimps eaters, just a command that they should be abominable to them. But the rest seems correct.

BTW, why is not the OT the source of your morality?

No we did not. History cannot tell anyone what is right and wrong unless you already know what is right. If you already know (or have the proper foundation for) that humans have rights then you can see from history what practices are contradictory to them. Secularists can do neither and so do exactly what your doing. Inventing moral line based on preference and once that is done then looking for a way to rationalizing them. History cannot tell anyone what should be done unless we already have a goal based in an objective foundation that transcends history.

Yes, in Europe we transcend history by allowing gay marriage.

Really? A person who has told you they are almost obsessed with history and who's faith goes back past recorded history being interested in history surprises you? I cannot think of anything I said that resembles what you say I said. Your going to have to quote it.

You can be obsessed with history a much as you want. But you have no way to say that the historical record is morally reliable. How can you, if the moral opinion held by most people does not tell us anything about it being right or wrong?

By that standard defending homosexuality is like defending murder. Murder a behavior resulting from genetics (you have ham strung your self here because you have previously eliminated the possibility of including "choice" here)

Choice? Do you think homosexuality is a choice? I am not sure I am following.
If you think it is a choice, when did you choose not to be homosexual?

BTW why would a determinist argue for anything with someone, my actions are unchangeable in your world view.
Also gravity is a universal law, homosexuality is an exception.

LOL. Determinism does not exclude that your mind cannot change state according to some external stimuli. Most things have dynamics even in a deterministic regime.

Exceptions are natural too. Unless you think they are supernatural. Your call.

I said 12 and so she is not 18. Not that 18 is an objective standard. 12 years old is perfectly within the criteria you gave. So I am asking for your answer again.

Alright. Point taken. We should prohibit the institution of marriage altogether. Better safe than sorry.

Quote me the verse where God instituted, approved, liked, recommended, etc... slavery. He found it to be a universal norm which humanity did approve, institute, and like which was impractical to instantly abolish, so he instead made the most benevolent rule on the face of the earth at the time to govern it until such time as it was practicable to abandon any allowance for it. Christian nations through primarily Christian blood are the only examples of a major nation self abolishing slavery for moral reasons.

What? The almighty found it impractical to remove slavery? LOL.

I can only imagine what He thought. Oh dear, I can stop the sun on the sky, part the oceans, create a Universe from scratch, resurrect people, flood the earth, send angels all over the place, but hey, this bad habit of my chosen people to own other people is really causing me headaches.

Blaming God for what we created, he made far less odious than we ever have, and which his followers gave a sea of blood to stop is desperation.

I am not blaming God for anything, on account of His obvious not-existence. I am blaming whomever thinks that He could be used as a role model for morality. That would be like choosing Genghis Khan for that role.

That would be easy since all of histories systems are suboptimal because they all contain imperfect humans and always will. However good luck with that.

So, your cultural tradition against gays could be suboptimal as well. How do you know?

That is completely false. Hospitals and grave yards are full of people put there by diseases spread through gay behavior. Can you imagine how mush less suffering there would be just in the US if the 63% of new aids cases that were spread by homosexuals did not exist? Your ability to ignore the this massive human wreckage is frightening and hypocritical.

But how is that related to gay marriage? You have no evidence whatsoever that all those evils, if any, will increase by allowing gays to marry. Otherwise, how do you intend to reduce them?



Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. The defense of homosexuality is an emotional one.

No, well, yes, but from my perspective, it is a logical one.
Your position, on the other hand, is not logical.
As for those things you couldn't find, here are a couple of them:
Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1 TImothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

And here is one of my favorites:
2 Kings 2:24
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
And just for making fun of a bald guy.

 

[gsa]

They don't what? If you mean increase the rate at which AIDS spreads it has been proven by the CDC.


Hello Skeptical Thinker.

Unfortunately your post is going to serve as my exit from this thread and hopefully homosexual debates all together. Your just happened to be the next one after my decision to call it quits. Your a reasonable debater and are not guilty of all or possibly any of the reasons for my decision which follow:

Dear: @viole, @9-10ths_Penguin, @SkepticThinker, @JoStories, @ImmortalFlame, @Monk Of Reason, @gsa and any one else I have debated on homosexuality.

I quit.

1. The defense of homosexuality is an emotional one.

2. It is a position of pre-determined preference, once made, then rationalization is searched for.

3. Every single argument I have been exposed to in favor of homosexuality (Many hundreds)
are of only 3 or 4 types. I sincerely believe those 3 or 4 types are complete failures as
justifications for the costs of homosexuality.

4. I could go through each type and point out all that is wrong with each but as it would take thousands of words, and I have done so in the past I will spare you all that.

None of the above reasons have forced me to terminate debating this issue. The one that has is the next one.

5. All people have pain and resentment in their past. However in homosexual and to a lesser extent abortion debates they seem to bring it out in many people. I mistakenly said in a post that it does so in all who defend homosexuality. That was incorrect. Some can hold onto their civility. However many cannot. Most of you have done your best to defend what can't be defended in a civil manner.

A poster partially or completely blamed me for their pain and aimed it at me. Their pretense at civility (as so often happens) could not be maintained when I would not agree with them. Insults, blame, and assuming the role of aggrieved victim is a practice I know well, as I used to employ them against others, and as a Christian I have had them aimed at me. I overcame my pain and the misuse of it and will not be caught up in another's failure to do so (at times at least I am unwilling to).

I however bear no homosexual (even that poster) any ill will. I am simply following what are my sincere faith beliefs and secular reasoning to reach conclusions. I have never restricted in anyway a homosexual's ability to do anything, personally or by law. I merely examine the issue in a debate context and obey the law. That is all anyone may demand of another.

As for this thread best of luck

Note: My conclusion. No one has even slightly dented my arguments, but Skeptical Thinker did manage to challenge one or two of the many premises I used along the way. Most of you have been civil. That is all the credit my conscience will allow.

God Bless, see you in other threads and I apologize if I stopped here before I answered anyone's post.

Now you may begin congratulating each other for a job un-done at your leisure. Just kidding.

Homosexuality simply is, it requires no defense. The rights of homosexuals, subject as they are to the vagaries of politics, do require defending. And yes, there is some deal of emotion involved. Hostility towards homosexuality and the rights of gay men and lesbians has resulted in plenty of adverse consequences to individuals, and to society. People do not forgive or forget these things lightly. They are not playing the role of aggrieved victims simply because they remember what has happened, or have a personal experience that does not correspond to your own .

As others have pointed out, your argument hinges on a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis that assumes the purpose of heterosexuality is reproduction, and that heterosexual relationships are only justified by reproduction. It is a very negative, implicitly pronatalist view of sexuality, one that strangely reduces everyone to sexual behavior. But that simply is not true; most heterosexual sexual behavior is not reproductive. There are enormous benefits to heterosexuality that are totally unrelated to reproduction. And so it is with homosexuality. We are not simply breeding machines, and we do not simply live for reproduction. Reproduction is a necessity for the survival of the species, sure, but that can be accomplished without sex these days. Sexuality serves other purposes for any social species, including humanity.

Honestly, how could it be otherwise? Homosexual couples throughout history have risked death because the risk is perceived as worth it. Unless you believe that homosexuals are simply irrational, which is a stretch, why would they risk so much for something that has so little reward, in your eyes? I mean after all, this includes much more than furtive and fleeting anonymous sex, although it includes that as well. It includes people who found each other, lived together and made a romantic life together, often under the most repressive conditions imaginable. They made major contributions to human history, many might argue that these contributions are outsized. For many periods, they also reproduced as that was a social obligation, even in times when homosexual relationships were tolerated, regulated and even encouraged.

But we live today, in a world where marriage serves a very different function than it served historically. And as society changes, so too does marriage change. While I hope that you will see that one day, I am not holding my breath.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because the only other option is recognizing that he has been very wrong, about a lot of things, for a really long time.
He's mostly just repeating it to himself.
Tom

It's a shame, really.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. Gay marriage should be allowed. Hetrosexuals who show so much concern should realize that they won't be affected. After all, there not gay, so they won't be asked to marry a same gender partner. U.S law is NOT built on what religion says, since the Counstituion is NOT considered scripture, but what can be argued using logic and reason to build there case. I have yet to hear an argument that is built on logic and reason against gay marriage.

I wholeheartedly agree. Good comment.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe that the entire US needs to be on the same page. Either gay marriage is or is not accepted. But, it needs to be the same in all states. I accept that states have the right to differ on issues and laws, but it doesn't make sense in all cases.

That is exactly what is happening in the Supreme Court. So, will you be on board with whatever decision is come to? In other words, the entire reasoning that the SCOTUS is taking up this issue is to settle it nationally, taking it away from the States where prejudice unjustified with any actual evidence can persevere over reason.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I support it because it will tear the mask of normalacy that people don. Guess what ? NOBODY IS NORMAL.

I've always found this to be a peculiar line of reasoning myself. Since when has being "normal" been a good thing? Or being not normal something wrong? Kind of weird how that concept seems to have been invented around same-sex marriage, and that people are actually stupid enough to buy into it.

 

[Scott C.]

That is exactly what is happening in the Supreme Court. So, will you be on board with whatever decision is come to? In other words, the entire reasoning that the SCOTUS is taking up this issue is to settle it nationally, taking it away from the States where prejudice unjustified with any actual evidence can persevere over reason.

I think we need to be consistent in all states.

 

[leibowde84]

I think we need to be consistent in all states.

We will be once the Supreme Court makes their decision, right? Their decision will be enforceable in all US States.

 

[leibowde84]

I think we need to be consistent in all states.

But, if you are talking about consensus between the states, that is a pipe dream. It is never going to happen.

 

[Marisa]

I long for the day when people realize that if their individual eternal disposition is dependent upon the individual actions of another person then an investment in ice cube trays should be made.