Theological Opinions , PART II

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think gay marriage is harmful to society and to the participants. You don't accept my definition of wrong/harmful in this case

Your definition of “wrong� and harmful is irrelevant because the bible isn’t a useful source for gathering data on gay marriage. Meanwhile, its pretty easy to observe, measure and document the harm in a partial birth abortion. In fact Id hazard a guess that its nearly 100% fatal far as I can tell. That’s a restriction of liberty. Death that is. And since we currently accept 9 months as way too late in the development cycle for normal abortion (but allowable in cases of danger to the mother) then it would be WRONG to restrict such liberty to the child. But it would also be wrong to restrict the liberty of perusing marriage between two adult willing gays. Yes, Rian you can say you may not kill this person. Because of they are allowed to kill this person then whos to say they cant kill someone related to you and attempt to justify it. But you cant say you may not enter into a relationship with this other person because I disagree with it on moral grounds even though it has absolutely nothing to do with me and doesn’t effect me.

Why is it sad? What are they "learned and wise elders" about if religion isn't about truth? What are they seeing beyond TO, in your opinion, if it's not something that's true or false?

They are seeing the inhumanity of the universe through their own humanity. They are realizing that the symbols man uses are just that: symbols and not The Way to be defended at all costs. And that to engage all your life in defending your belief system is missing out on what the belief system really means. The real and true patterns of life can be found by analyzing the divine. You begin to see the patterns if you allow yourself. And you don’t need one specific narrow view or religion to achieve this understanding. This understanding can be found in ALL religions. and it can ALSO be found in art, in writing, in poetry, in music, even from hiking in nature. The vehicle is not as important as understanding the journey.

It seems like the only thing that your "elders" are wise about is being "transcendant" - but if that has no relation with knowing truth, then what are they wise ABOUT? No offense, but it seems like they're just wise about getting high

oh I see, to you “transcendence� just means drug use. Well step back from your peyote preconceptions of the term “transcendence� and realize it has nothing to do with drugs but instead it has to do with getting BEYOND (yeah that’s the transcendence part…) that which limits us and keeps us from seeing the meaning beneath the veil. To many people focus just on the covering and spend all their life arguing over the nature of the covering and never see the important thing which is the shape of the thing under the covering. Why? Because we can only approach this thing through the use of the various coverings so many feel why worry about that which we can never see directly and instead focus on the things we can see and control directly. In that way they allow the man made reality to become more important then the divine.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Your definition of “wrong� and harmful is irrelevant because the bible isn’t a useful source for gathering data on gay marriage.

Well, that's certainly your opinion - and so it makes sense that YOU don't form your opinions based on the Bible. I can totally agree with that.

And since we currently accept 9 months as way too late in the development cycle for normal abortion (but allowable in cases of danger to the mother) then it would be WRONG to restrict such liberty to the child.

Ah, here's the rub - you say WE current accept 9 months, etc. That is obviously false, because as I pointed out, the women that get partial birth abortions are NOT screaming, "No! No! 9 months is too late for this abortion! Stop right now! I want to keep this baby!"

No, IRex - it's obvious that "WE" don't ALL think that 9 months is too late. What is true is that MANY people do NOT think 9 months is too late - they disagree with you. So why should YOUR opinion, which they disagree with, be forced on them? You don't think partial birth abortion is right - fine, so don't do it yourself (second-hand, that is). But given the way you talk to me about gay marriage, I would certainly expect you to say, "Well, I think it's wrong based on my evaluation standards, but obviously other people do NOT think it's wrong, so I certainly would not restrict their freedom to follow what they think is right."

Yet it doesn't appear that you say that. That sure looks like a double standard to me. I'll illustrate that by the following 2 paragraphs:

MANY people, by their own chosen methods of evaluation, think gay marriage is wrong. Yet you say that we can just not enter into a gay marriage ourselves, and so we shouldn't push our definition of wrong on others who do NOT think it's wrong.

MANY people, by their own chosen methods of evaluation, think partial birth abortion is wrong. Yet you DO NOT say that we can just not have a partial birth abortion ourselves, and so we shouldn't push our definition of wrong on others who do NOT think it's wrong.

Why would you try to force YOUR definition of wrong on people who do NOT agree with you and who think partial birth abortion is right? You tell me not to force MY definition of wrong on people that disagree with me; why would YOU do it?

The only reason that I see you give is this: "Because of they are allowed to kill this person then whos to say they cant kill someone related to you and attempt to justify it." Obviously they don't think it's a person - IOW, you're forcing YOUR definition of personhood on them. Again, why should you force your beliefs on other people? Personally, I think that a pre-born infant is a person from conception, yet I doubt that you would encourage me to force my definition of personhood on others. Why should YOU force YOUR definition on others, then?

[Rían]

(and I don't think “transcendence� just means drug use, btw, but I can't even begin to sort out that post right now...)

[Count Comfect]

Rian - just a small point. There is a third party to the abortion (the aborted fetus, whether or not taken to be a person), which there is not in the gay marriage. Hence the two would not be analogous. You could say that, if the fetus is a person, you have a collective responsibility to care for that person (as that person is a minor, and the state has a recognized responsibility to care for minors). However, there is no such third party in the gay marriage, unless the state itself is taken as a third party... and even then, the situation is not directly analogous because the state is not being extinguished.

Not to say anything about the validity of said positions - just that the difference is there.

[Rían]

I see what you're saying, Count, but it is irrelevant because what I'm pointing out is IRex's inconsistent position. He talks about not forcing our views of right/wrong on others, yet he apparently does this himself in the case of PBA. I would imagine he thinks early abortions are fine, but to me, they involve a third party - yet I imagine he would tell me to let others alone that think it's fine. So I'm just making sure that he would act the same way himself, yet it doesn't look like he would. From what I can tell, he would vote against PBA - is that right, IRex?

The pre-born child may be a person to SOME people, but obviously not to all. To me, it is a person from conception. To others, obviously it's not. From what IRex has written, I guess he thinks it's NOT a person in the early stages and IS a person later on. But that is an entirely subjective opinion, and people have different opinions.

We all form our differing opinions based on our underlying beliefs of how we should decide what right and wrong is. IRex tells me to not force my beliefs of right and wrong on other people when I can choose to not do that thing (as in the case of gay marriage), yet he appears to be doing the very thing he's telling me NOT to do in the case of PBA. This sure appears to be an unfair double standard to me, and I think it is important to point out.

Let me get his totally clear - IRex, if you had a chance to vote to make PBA illegal, how would you vote?

[Insidious Rex]

Rian stop with your spin and your continual ignoring of my main point. Gay marriage DOESNT kill or harm anyone. If you have some scientific data showing what a deadly horrific harmful thing it is that it would actually justify barring homosexuals ONLY from marriage then please publish it and show the world. so far you havent. Now ONCE AGAIN I can show you reams of SCIENTIFIC data showing that a 9 month old fetus can feel real pain and that having willy nilly partial birth abortions just for the heck of it are not only bad for the unborn fetus but are highly dangerous for the MOTHER as well. for THESE reasons it makes logical sense to restrict this type of procedure in the same way we restrict other things that can cause real harm. Should it be illegal? no. never said it should. should it be difficult to have and only under certain conditions? Absolutely. Kind of like handling major explosives. You can do it under certain conditions but its potentially very harmful so we need to keep on top of how we allow it exactly. And with partial birth abortion, again I can prove the HARM. The same thing you CANT do with gay marriage. So please stop trying to spin the topic and make me look like a hypocrite when you are looking to control all parties involved here. My positions are consistant in that i attempt to balance the liberty of the highly developed fetus which is clearly far different from 2 cells smaller then a pin tip and the liberty of a mother who for medical reasons may need to resort to such a horrible choice to save her own life. At the same time I believe there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals based on religious reasons. But you do. You believe that abortion is wrong and homosexuality is wrong. Your approach is top down and rigid and irrelevant of the specifics of each individual case. My approach is an attempt to tip toward the delicate balance of liberty in an imperfect world.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Rian stop with your spin and your continual ignoring of my main point.

and would YOU please stop saying I "spin" when I point out your logical inconsistencies. It's not spinning, unless your definition of "spin" is to point out the logical inconsistencies of another person.

I'm not ignoring your main point, because I'm not talking about gay marriage here, except as an example of how you are inconsistent. We both know we have different opinions on gay marriage. We can debate the merits of those positions in another thread if you want to. I only brought up gay marriage to show that you tell me not to push my opinion on other people in this area, then you turn around and push YOUR opinion on other people in another area. Double standard. Period.

Gay marriage DOESNT kill or harm anyone. If you have some scientific data showing what a deadly horrific harmful thing it is that it would actually justify barring homosexuals ONLY from marriage then please publish it and show the world. so far you havent.

It doesn't even matter if gay marriage kills or hurts people. You've already said that you don't care if I could bring scientific evidence showing it does - you would still support it. So you can stop asking for scientific evidence since you'll ignore it anyway.

Now ONCE AGAIN I can show you reams of SCIENTIFIC data showing that a 9 month old fetus can feel real pain and that having willy nilly partial birth abortions just for the heck of it are not only bad for the unborn fetus but are highly dangerous for the MOTHER as well. for THESE reasons it makes logical sense to restrict this type of procedure in the same way we restrict other things that can cause real harm.

I'm fully aware that you are satisfied that PBA is harmful, and therefore should be restricted.

Should it be illegal? no. never said it should. should it be difficult to have and only under certain conditions? Absolutely. Kind of like handling major explosives. You can do it under certain conditions but its potentially very harmful so we need to keep on top of how we allow it exactly.

So you would limit PBA? You would force your opinion on this issue on other people who don't think it's wrong? You would, as you said above, "restrict" it? Even for people who do NOT think it's wrong?

Double standard - please stop asking me to stop forcing my opinion on gay marriage on others, since you yourself would restrict something that other people think is fine.

And with partial birth abortion, again I can prove the HARM.

Of course, a 2-month fetus is harmed, too, when it is aborted. So obviously "harm" is not the only issue here. It's a person's subjective definition of "personhood", too. And it looks like you want to force YOUR definition of "personhood" on someone who has a different one. Many people have had no problem getting a partial birth abortion - why should you be hypocritical and force YOUR standards on them? Go ahead and do it, but stop telling me to force my opinion on others, then.

The same thing you CANT do with gay marriage.

You can look at information I present, showing the harm of gay marriage, and decide whether or not you agree, according to your own personal standards. And a person that thinks PBA is fine can look at information YOU present and decide if they think PBA is right or wrong, according to THEIR personal standards. And if you were consistent, you would not force YOUR opinion on them, just like you tell me to not force my opinion on you.

So please stop trying to spin the topic and make me look like a hypocrite when you are looking to control all parties involved here.

I'm not spinning, and never have. You just say that when I show that you're logically inconsistent. Your behavior in this area is hypocritical, IMO - not mean or anything, just hypocritical. There are people that think PBA is just fine, and you appear to be trying to limit their freedom, even though you, personally, don't have to get one or encourage someone to get one. Yet you tell me to not limit gays that want to marry, even though I don't have to personally be involved in one. Total double standard here.

And if I'm "looking to control all parties", then so are you in the same way. You're obviously trying to control people that think PBA is fine, because you said in your post that it should only be under "certain conditions". That's - guess what? - CONTOLLING other people's actions.

My positions are consistant in that i attempt to balance the liberty of the highly developed fetus which is clearly far different from 2 cells smaller then a pin tip and the liberty of a mother who for medical reasons may need to resort to such a horrible choice to save her own life. At the same time I believe there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals based on religious reasons. But you do. You believe that abortion is wrong and homosexuality is wrong. Your approach is top down and rigid and irrelevant of the specifics of each individual case. My approach is an attempt to tip toward the delicate balance of liberty in an imperfect world.

My approach may or may not be what you said (it's not, but I won't argue that here), but YOUR approach is logically inconsistent - you have a double standard, and get upset at me for daring to vote against gay marriage, when you yourself would force limits on people that think partial birth abortion is fine under all circumstances.

You think PBA should be "restricted", so you are forcing YOUR opinion on others that don't think it's wrong or should be restricted. And yet you tell me to not force my opinion on gay marriage on others that don't think it's wrong. At least I'm consistent - I think EVERYONE should vote for what they think is right, even if their position is different than mine.

You are forcing YOUR personal opinion on others in a way that restricts THEIR freedoms on an issue THEY think is right, even though you don't have to be involved with it personally. You are being hypocritial. Period.

[Insidious Rex]

Oh already resorting to taking the gloves off I see. Ok…

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and would YOU please stop saying I "spin" when I point out your logical inconsistencies. It's not spinning, unless your definition of "spin" is to point out the logical inconsistencies of another person.

it sure is spinning when you ignore my main point that you cant refute and pretend instead that my argument has logical inconsistencies. Sorry.

I'm not ignoring your main point, because I'm not talking about gay marriage here

oh you most certainly have been! Pay attention to what you write rian.

I only brought up gay marriage to show that you tell me not to push my opinion on other people in this area, then you turn around and push YOUR opinion on other people in another area. Double standard. Period.

wrong. apples and oranges. Gay marriage harms no one. Ending a life does. Until you can see the difference here then we wont get anywhere. If its still too difficult for you lets look at an even more ridiculous example: I believe shooting people in the head for no reason shouldn’t be allowed. Why? Because it deprives them of their life and their liberty. In this way its at LEAST very unconstitutional. And furthermore its dangerous to allow this kind of behavior in society unchecked because the logical conclusion of such is total anarchy and mass death and the end of the society. Now YOU believe that people with black hair shouldn’t be allowed to get married. You believe this because of the cult you joined in college held it as one of its most fundamental decrees. You cant actually show proof of it but you believe it with all your heart because well you just do. Now you DON’T have the right to ACT on these cult inspired beliefs and actually force all black haired people to dissolve their marriages if they are married and to ban the ability of single black haired people to ever get married. you have NO right to do that. Because it doesn’t effect you AT ALL. Nor is there any harm in it. So you would be restricting THEIR liberty just like the murderer is restricting the liberty of the person he shoots. Well not AS restrictive clearly but restrictive enough to be dead wrong. So IM not the one being inconsistent YOU are. You are saying its wrong to take away someones liberty in one situation but its ok to in another if it follows my religious beliefs. Clearly you need to not be such a hypocrite rian…

It doesn't even matter if gay marriage kills or hurts people.

it doesn’t? hm… then whats your reasoning for banning it then?

So you can stop asking for scientific evidence

without scientific evidence your claims that banning gay marriage is justified amounts to hot air. And pure discrimination. So yes im afraid you do need scientific evidence to discriminate against others no matter what MY opinion of your evidence might be.

Double standard - please stop asking me to stop forcing my opinion on gay marriage on others, since you yourself would restrict something that other people think is fine.

and again if you think shooting someone in the head is fine sorry you don’t get to do that. Because it does KILL someone after all… Do I need to go back to that constitutional reference to show you why this is unacceptable but something that causes people no harm is? In this country abortions deep in the third trimester are REGULATED because we have SCIENTIFIC evidence that the fetus at this stage has a much more developed nervous system and can feel real pain. We DON’T have consistent evidence of that in the first few weeks of gestation. So sorry theres no double standard once again. You just aren’t following the true consistencies here.

Many people have had no problem getting a partial birth abortion

actually… contrary to your characterization of partial birth abortions as a walk in the park done on a whim… they are actually highly dangerous TO THE MOTHER as well. So restricting them is necessary for the health of the MOTHER also. Its not JUST about the fetus. Again we don’t let just anybody play with powerful explosives. Is this a double standard? Should we let people blow themselves and other people up to be “consistent�? Or are we actually being MORE consistent by carefully regulating such things thus minimizing harm and possible death (robbing of liberty).

You can look at information I present, showing the harm of gay marriage, and decide whether or not you agree, according to your own personal standards. And a person that thinks PBA is fine can look at information YOU present and decide if they think PBA is right or wrong, according to THEIR personal standards.

no no no… come back here that’s not what I said. I said I can show you evidence that it KILLS rather effectively each and every time. Not “right or wrong�. Now since we ALSO have scientific evidence that tells us about the state of development of the fetus at say oh 8.8 months gestation then all you need to know is does this harm or kill. If the answer is yes then you have an argument for regulation. It doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t think its wrong to kill every other person in the country. That’s just a ridiculous hypothetical stance to take frankly. And I just want to point out im amused that you tried to sneak by a false comparison. Comparing agreeing with the evidence for harm of gay marriage and deciding whether partial birth abortion is right or wrong. right or wrong shouldn’t enter into this at all. Its simply about is their harm so extreme as to justify discrimination or regulation.

And if I'm "looking to control all parties", then so are you in the same way. You're obviously trying to control people that think PBA is fine, because you said in your post that it should only be under "certain conditions". That's - guess what? - CONTOLLING other people's actions.

incorrect. That’s attempting to balance liberty properly. You can control others actions IF their actions are shown to cause harm or death to others last time I checked. Make sense? Since gay marriage HASN’T been shown to cause such a thing then you really have no basis for controlling people who want to enter into a marriage just because they are gay. But as long as we accept the scientific evidence showing that 9 month old fetuses are developed enough to definitely feel pain and have higher brain functions unlike younger fetuses then we can justify “controlling� others who want to kill them.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh already resorting to taking the gloves off I see. Ok…

I don't understand what you mean by this, but whatever ... I mean, you saying that I "spin" things is highly insulting to me. All I did was say that I'm not spinning, and that IMO you are being inconsistent. How is this "taking the gloves off"?

it sure is spinning when you ignore my main point that you cant refute and pretend instead that my argument has logical inconsistencies. Sorry.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not ignoring your main point, and I"m certainly not pretending anything! I've already said that I fully understand that you see no harm in gay marriage, and that you DO see harm in PBA so you think it should be restricted. Is that correct?

wrong. apples and oranges. Gay marriage harms no one. Ending a life does. Until you can see the difference here then we wont get anywhere.

I DO see the difference, according to how you look at it. That's NOT the inconsistency I'm pointing out!

Let me get one thing straight - You talk about basing your opinion if something should be allowed or not on whether or not that thing is harmful or kills someone. Simple question - do you think it is wrong to harm someone or kill them?

Let me get that answer, and then I think we can go on and hopefully understand each other better.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

a religious view on 'harm' (ie homosexuality) is slightly different from killing someone, which, i think we can safely say, is definitely harming someone, i am with IR here, i am afraid

[Rían]

And I'll ask you, too, Chrys - do you think it is wrong to harm someone?

Do you think partial birth abortion is right? Do you think abortion at any time is right or wrong?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by rian

And I'll ask you, too, Chrys - do you think it is wrong to harm someone?

can you define harm? are we talking quantitative or qualitative data? it is quite obvious that we have completely different definitions of 'harm'

Originally Posted by rian

Do you think partial birth abortion is right?

no i don't, i may not fully understand the semantics of the debate, my field is ethno-archaeology, but, from what i understand, once past a certain point, then it is wrong

Originally Posted by rian

Do you think abortion at any time is right or wrong?

before a certain point, ie before the foetus reaches sentience (which has, IIRC, been quanitifiably measured) and if it is in the best interests of the parent and child then am abortive procedure may be called upon

[Earniel]

It seems you all went down another rabbit-hole here.

Last active thread about abortion is here

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by earniel

It seems you all went down another rabbit-hole here.

i managed to stay out of it for sooo long

hmm, religion....

ah yes, in 'the guardian' (best british newspaper), a vicar said that jesus never said anything against homosexuality, and all anti-gay stuff in the bible is in the old testament. discuss.

[Lief Erikson]

Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality in the written gospel accounts of the New Testament. That's logical, for it wasn't a big issue at that time. Everyone was agreed on that point, and they all followed the Mosaic teachings. In the Law of Moses, (OT) homosexual behavior is considered a sin.

Meanwhile, it is clear from the New Testament that Jesus did consider some sexual acts moral and others not. In Luke 7:21 he says that sexual immorality, along with many other evil things, makes a man unclean.

Now Jesus' followers were the people who wrote the epistles. Paul spoke against homosexuality very clearly in the books of Romans and Corinthians. In Corinthians he said, "no homosexual shall enter the kingdom of heaven," and in Romans he spoke of people abandoning natural relations with women for unnatural ones. In context it was clear he was speaking about homosexuality.

In Jude verse 7, the author says that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves to sexual immorality and perversion, and hence they were destroyed. There is another scripture in the Old Testament that says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their pride. This is a passage some people use to argue against the Jude 7 version, saying that they were destroyed because of pride, not perversion. However, when Paul talks about people whom God gave over to homosexuality as a punishment to them for not believing in God, he says that they were given also a "depraved mind". He goes on to describe this depraved mind, and among its faults is arrogance. So the people of Sodom and Gomorrah could have been punished for both arrogance and sexual immorality- the passages are not in opposition to one another.

Some people claim that these different New Testament passages that speak on the subject of homosexuality are mistranslated. They should consider, however, that nowhere in the scripture is anything clear written that is in favor of homosexuality. Sex is spoken of frequently in scriptures. Marriage is lauded even in sexually explicit terms in "Song of Songs," and is described as a Revelation as a parallel between the Church and Christ. Jesus said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female? For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

If the New Testament writers were in favor of homosexuality, one would think that such a major step aside from the Old Testament would be defended in their writings. Instead, you'll find no support of homosexuality from the Early Church Fathers and nothing supporting the practice in the epistles. Nothing in the New Testament either. That absence of support for homosexuality says something very loudly, even if one says that the New Testament passages speaking against it are "mistranslated."

So that's my direct response to what that vicar was saying. However, on the subject of homosexuality, I have a couple things to add.

Firstly, this is talking about practicing homosexuals. I believe, though, that people who feel homosexual inclinations can change/be-changed. It's not a lost cause.

Secondly, about the Corinthians passage that "no homosexual shall enter the kingdom of heaven." While I believe that to be true, I believe this to be true of every sin. No sinner is coming to heaven. Instead, everyone who has been washed clean in Christ and purified in him shall come to heaven. He cleans people, and as it says in Revelation, gives them white robes to wear. As Jesus said in the New Testament, anyone who comes to the marriage banquet without wedding clothes will be thrown out. God will not accept any sinners in his courts, but only those that have been wiped clean by the blood of Jesus. They will be clean, as Paul puts it, "shining like stars." So that's the goal, and it's impossible for humanity to accomplish on its own. Humanity needs God to help them to do it.

When Jesus comes into a person, he changes them from the inside out. He changes their behavior. He sometimes disciplines them for their own good, but he encourages them. I have met God, and I can tell you he is extremely gentle, extremely loving. He is possible to meet and to know, in the same way as people in the New Testament met him.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Gay marriage harms no one. Ending a life does. Until you can see the difference here then we wont get anywhere.

In other words, "we won't get anywhere until you drop your belief that gay marriage is harmful."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now YOU believe that people with black hair shouldn’t be allowed to get married. You believe this because of the cult you joined in college held it as one of its most fundamental decrees. You cant actually show proof of it but you believe it with all your heart because well you just do. Now you DON’T have the right to ACT on these cult inspired beliefs and actually force all black haired people to dissolve their marriages if they are married and to ban the ability of single black haired people to ever get married. you have NO right to do that.

No legal or no moral right? Legally, she would have the right to try to pass that law. Morally, whether or not she should is a matter of opinion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because it doesn’t effect you AT ALL.

The example is flawed. Homosexuality is severely damaging to people. It contributes to and even causes deadly diseases. It generally is far more promiscuous then heterosexuality. I believe it destroys people internally as well, causing thoughts and feelings that can even be suicidal (the suicide rate among homosexuals is far higher then among heterosexuals).

Homosexuality is a man-man relationship or woman-woman, rather then man-woman, so it must be different simply because of differences between genders. Therefore it should have studies taken of it before the same laws are made concerning it as are already in place about heterosexual marriage. New laws may well be appropriate.

Also there is the fact that homosexuality impacts society in general. This is the whole country we're talking about. One has to broaden his horizons beyond "it's entirely between these two people." If homosexual marriage is accepted in society, it will appear on the television. It will appear in magazines. It will appear on the streets or when bringing children home from school. It will be hard to raise children in an environment where the line everywhere is blurred between what is marriage and what is not.

People in this environment will be encouraged to follow through with their homosexual inclinations by the government, which will have said it is 100% fine to practice homosexuality. The act of allowing homosexuals marriage is an encouragement. It is an implicit statement that "this is good, this is fine," for if it weren't good and fine, why would it be permitted to receive the rights of marriage?

While heterosexual marriage is tried and true, homosexual relationships have very conflicting data on them. Therefore studies must be taken, showing what kind of an impact they will have on society and what goes into those relationships, before they should be given laws that have been traditionally applied only to heterosexual unions.

Actually though, I'm not all that interested in getting into another huge debate on this issue. You can respond to this post if you want, but I don't really think it's worth my time to keep debating this.

I will discuss the Biblical issue a bit longer, though, in case anyone continues to question what the Bible says on the matter.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by leif

The example is flawed. Homosexuality is severely damaging to people. It contributes to and even causes deadly diseases. It generally is far more promiscuous then heterosexuality. I believe it destroys people internally as well, causing thoughts and feelings that can even be suicidal (the suicide rate among homosexuals is far higher then among heterosexuals).

i must take issue with this entire passage, 'generally more promicuous'? in the words of Gina Yashere, "I don't think so", and suicide statistics are an incredibly subjective data source, causes deadly diseases? well, you can get these diseases regardless of sexuality

[inked]

Well, if you really want to discuss depending on societies' views, and all views are equally valid (until you become convinced of one view as correct, that is), I suggest these views for consideration:

http://saveelca.blogspot.com/ May 28, 2005

The article on "Hardwired" questions the use of certain concepts in one area but not another, and the article on "Educate yourselves: Homomyths" is a clear and thought-provoking point of view regarding currently disseminated disinformations.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

ah yes, in 'the guardian' (best british newspaper), a vicar said that jesus never said anything against homosexuality, and all anti-gay stuff in the bible is in the old testament. discuss.

This reminds me of an argument that my kids sometimes try on me (without sucess)-

Kid 1 - Mom, she hit me!
Mom - Kid 2, you know that you are not supposed to hit people!
Kid 2 - I didn't hit him! I just slapped him!
Mom -


Lief answered this one like I would, so I'll just say read his post.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It seems you all went down another rabbit-hole here.

Last active thread about abortion is here

Eärniel, I'm not discussing abortion per se; I'm only using it as an example of how people make determinations on what is right and wrong, so can I continiue? I'm not debating if it's right or wrong; I'm only trying to use it as an example of how we determine what is right or wrong. IRex says he doesn't think gay marriage is harmful, but that PBA is harmful, so he would only limit the latter. I'm trying to explore this further, because I see inconsistencies in how he treats other people's opinions and how he, himself, acts.

There IS something that I might post on the abortion thread, tho - there's some interesting legislation in Congress, the fetal pain bill, that if passed, would REQUIRE physicians performing abortions to inform women that the latest studies show that a fetus feels pain, and to give them the option of giving the fetus some anesthesia before it gets aborted (which involves some pretty awful things that I won't list here)