Same sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional in Michigan

#601
#601
BigOrangeTrain said:
It's difficult to explain religious things to those who think its ridiculous and stupid. It's much easier for you to think Christians are wrong and continue to believe whatever it is you believe.
Click to expand...

I used to be a minister. I understand things of a religious nature and I don't think religion is stupid. I think the way people use their religion to explain and navigate their existence can be pretty stupid at times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#602
#602
n_huffhines said:
I used to be a minister. I understand things of a religious nature and I don't think religion is stupid. I think the way people use their religion to explain and navigate their existence can be pretty stupid at times.
Click to expand...

I do my best to avoid religion, but here goes:

Do you feel that sex outside of wedlock (fornication) and cheating on your wife (adultery) are sins?
 
#603
#603
Gannon Goodson said:
I do my best to avoid religion, but here goes:

Do you feel that sex outside of wedlock (fornication) and cheating on your wife (adultery) are sins?
Click to expand...

I know that you didn't ask me, but no.

I don't believe in sin; however, sex has been shown through different species to be both procreational and pleasureable.

Fifteen hundred or more species of animals exhibit male-male sexual tendencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#604
#604
VOLatile said:
I know that you didn't ask me, but no.

I don't believe in sin; however, sex has been shown through different species to be both procreational and pleasureable.

Fifteen hundred or more species of animals exhibit male-male sexual tendencies.
Click to expand...

That's a common argument I've heard many times before on VN and from others. Homosexual conduct observed in nature is well documented, so that thesis makes sense. Well, not really. You what other behaviors are observed in the wild. Male lions will off the cubs of a lioness in order to mate with her and spread his seed. I'm sure we'd have a problem if men started killing their future step-children. But... but... but... it's behavior observed in the wild. When the mane begins to grow on a sexually maturing male, the older male lion will kick him out of the pride. If he doesn't leave, the older male will kill him. So I guess men should start throwing their sons out of the house, and if they refuse to leave, he should kill them. But... but... but... it's behavior observed in the wild.

Humans are part of the animal kingdom, but we are not animals. Our ability to conceptualize abstract concepts separates us from wild animals. We possess far superior mental faculties. That means we should know better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#605
#605
VOLatile said:
I know that you didn't ask me, but no.

I don't believe in sin; however, sex has been shown through different species to be both procreational and pleasureable.

Fifteen hundred or more species of animals exhibit male-male sexual tendencies.
Click to expand...

Humans are unlike any other species of animal. Also human physiology will tell you that gay sex is unnatural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#606
#606
Gannon Goodson said:
I do my best to avoid religion, but here goes:

Do you feel that sex outside of wedlock (fornication) and cheating on your wife (adultery) are sins?
Click to expand...

The only actions I believe to be sinful are offenses against your fellow man.

I'm not religious anymore, though. Not to be confused with atheism.
 
#607
#607
BTW, I read recently the origin of the word "sin" means to "miss the mark"...kind of interesting.
 
#615
#615
Septic said:
If the shoe fits.
Click to expand...

0.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#618
#618
Gannon Goodson said:
I do my best to avoid religion, but here goes:

Do you feel that sex outside of wedlock (fornication) and cheating on your wife (adultery) are sins?
Click to expand...

According to both the Old Testament and New Testament, both sex outside of wedlock and cheating on one's spouse are adultery. And, both are sins. However, both the Old Testament and New Testament continue arguments and reasons as to why these are viewed as sins; and, not surprisingly, the accounts diverge.

The Old Testament cashes out this sin in terms of honor. By sleeping with a woman and not marrying her, one dishonors that woman's family; by cheating on one's wife, one dishonors one's wife (and, also, that woman's family). Moreover, the sexual act itself is viewed as inherently unclean, both within and without the marriage covenant, in the Old Testament. Sex itself is viewed as something that forces a later cleansing process for the Israelite.

The New Testament, on the other hand, views sex as something that holds large sway over the individual, clouds there minds, and brings there thoughts away from God. Again, it does this both within and without the marriage covenant. However, marriage is recommended because marital sex results in less cloudiness (basically, when one is monogamous, they no longer chase after every sexual urge). Thus, sex outside of marriage keeps one from focusing on God. Cheating on one's wife, however, is the breaking of a vow not only to one's wife but to God (as the marriage vow asserts a fidelity to one's spouse, and that assertion is made to God).

This covers the basic views of sex that come out of the Bible. This also gives us reasons to condemn homosexuality, from a Biblical point of view.

Feces are viewed as more unclean than vaginal fluids. Thus, the Old Testament view of male homosexuality (they interestingly don't provide a view of female homosexuality) as wrong can reasonably be defended as wrong because it is so very unclean.

On the New Testament view, the case can be made that this urge is less satiable than the heterosexual urge, in that the heterosexual urge likely results in children and a family, and the raising of children and having a family dampens sexual urges (it certainly does during certain periods of pregnancy and post-pregnancy).

But, the New Testament largely remains silent on homosexuality. In fact, the New Testament, in speaking of homosexuality, is strictly speaking to the practice of master-boy pederasty, which was not uncommon among Greek gentiles.

That said, we can address both of these views, from the Old and the New Testament, with a contemporary understanding. We know that both honor and uncleanliness played a large role in the lives of individuals living in 500 BC Babylon and Judea. This is a historical fact. We know that uncleanliness is the prompt behind certain Old Testament laws that we now very readily reject (prohibitions on certain types of foods, clothing, behavior during menstruation, etc.) We very readily reject these statutes because developments in hygiene render these statutes meaningless.

As for honor, this is an idea that has largely fallen away with the inception and development of Christianity. Christ did not give a **** about honor. He dined with the poor, the tax collectors, etc. He directly defied the notion of honor in parables regarding banquets and places at the table.

Homosexual acts, with today's advances in medicine and hygiene, are no longer a threat to the physical health of a community. We are not eating out of common bowls on tables with our hands; we bathe regularly, rendering innocuous physical contact innocuous. STDs are certainly transmittable, but between full-fledged homosexuals, such STDs only affect the homosexual community; further, outside of the homosexual community, STDs in the heterosexual community affect much larger numbers and do so in a manner much less conspicuously. So, the unclean argument really fails in contemporary societies equipped with advanced medical technology and personal hygiene methods.

Now, since the honor and unclean accounts are basically moot today, we are left with the "homosexual urges must keep individuals farther separated from God" reasoning. The burden of proof placed upon this stance is enormous, and the more common practices of adoption and birth control, the reasons seem unlikely to warrant any objections to homosexuality that cannot be leveled against heterosexual marriages (the Catholic Church, with its prohibitions on some birth control methods, abstaining). We can readily assume homosexual couples that adopt children will place the energy into raising such children as heterosexual couples do; and, thus, we ought to infer that energy will lend itself to a reduction in libido and sexual urges; those very urges which keep one from focusing on God. Further, we can readily assume that married heterosexual partners can indefinitely delay the having and raising of children, thus never decreasing those same urges that keep them from focusing on God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#619
#619
Gannon Goodson said:
That's a common argument I've heard many times before on VN and from others. Homosexual conduct observed in nature is well documented, so that thesis makes sense. Well, not really. You what other behaviors are observed in the wild. Male lions will off the cubs of a lioness in order to mate with her and spread his seed. I'm sure we'd have a problem if men started killing their future step-children. But... but... but... it's behavior observed in the wild. When the mane begins to grow on a sexually maturing male, the older male lion will kick him out of the pride. If he doesn't leave, the older male will kill him. So I guess men should start throwing their sons out of the house, and if they refuse to leave, he should kill them. But... but... but... it's behavior observed in the wild.

Humans are part of the animal kingdom, but we are not animals. Our ability to conceptualize abstract concepts separates us from wild animals. We possess far superior mental faculties. That means we should know better.
Click to expand...

There is a huge conceptual distinction between natural behaviors that result between two parties in which one is not consenting to the behavior or the result (lion killing cub :: man killing child) and those in which both parties do or would consent (two animals both receiving pleasure from an act :: two humans both receiving pleasure from an act). Failing to take note of such a distinction is failing.

Further, it matters not if homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is profuse or sparse; it matters simply that it exists, and, thus, provides reason to believe that homosexuality can be natural and not an artificial human construct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#620
#620
BigOrangeTrain said:
You also cannot simply say accepting gay marriage will not lead to society accepting pedophilia. The facts are we just don't know.
Click to expand...

So you can provide no evidence that this will happen, but we should ban gay marriage just to be safe?

I can provide no evidence that a well trained militia with legally purchased ammunition and weapons will overthrow a republican controlled legislature in 2017, but should we go ahead and ban those things too? Just to be safe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#622
#622
TRUT I enjoyed reading your perspective on the Bible and sexual behavior you posted this morning.
 
#624
#624
Gramps said:
TRUT I enjoyed reading your perspective on the Bible and sexual behavior you posted this morning.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

While the Bible is certainly held to issue divine commands, those commands rarely come without accounts as to why they are being commanded.

That said, I do need to be careful, because the Christian can still say, "Yes, I see those reasons, but they are still divinely commanded. And, until there is a third testament and a new revelation trumping and/or 'fulfilling' those commands, I must assume such commands still hold."

For a divine command theorist, it is quite clear that we cannot fully explicate the intent behind the commands; thus, we cannot fully substitute or modify divine commands to align with such divine intent.
 
#625
#625
n_huffhines said:
The Bible condemns a lot of things. It doesn't mean that the offenders are going to hell. Also, a good majority of the old testament is not observed, and the new testament doesn't say anything definitive about homosexuality.
Click to expand...

You "used to be a minister."
Where did you go to school? Anybody that has read the New Testament knows this is in no way correct, especially the last sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top