How many more gays does god have to create...

[The Baron]

“Enter the world" =/= Created.

It was created by God prior to entering the world. All Adam did was open the door for it to walk through.” - Tucker Case

Please see my post no. 347 where I address this point.

My reasoning is fully consistent. Your choice in terminology, however, is not.” - Tucker Case

Insisting that your reasoning is consistent doesn’t make it so and it is noteworthy that you’ve not provided any defensive rationale for your reasoning.

As for my terminology, this is how the Bible phrases it…

Romans 5:12
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin…”

I only used the same descriptive terminology that the Bible uses.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The problem with this idea is that it simply is not going to happen any time soon. For the foreseeable future marriage will exist with governmental/legal benefits. As long as that is the case, SSM is going to be an issue and in my opinion should be something we work towards. From a practical standpoint it will be alot easier for us to get SSM legalized over overhauling marriage entirely.

Politics being the art of the possible and all, you're correct. SSM will be a lot easier to get passed than the idea that marriage should be outside of government control altogether. The principle of less government involvement in personal lives is a sound one, however, and worth working for.

 

[The Baron]

"If that kind of backing for the Bible existed, everybody would be a Christian." - theplaydrive

Sadly not everybody is a Christian but not because of the lack of corresponding evidence but in spite of it.

Romans 1:21-22
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..."

 

[roguenuke]

All true, and all could be done without government sanction. If a couple is not religious, then a non religious ceremony could be performed. The government doesn't have to be involved. In fact, the less the government is involved in people's personal lives, the better.

Not nearly as easily done with the one legal document that it takes to do a legal marriage.

And I don't understand what the opposition is to the legal institution of marriage anyway. It isn't like there are really any restrictions or expectations of the government put on marriage, nor are people who don't want to be married required to enter into the contract unwillingly.

If you are opposed to giving certain benefits to married couples, fine, then fight to have those benefits taken away from married couples.

If you want more contracts to describe other marriages that aren't quite the same relationship type (i.e. sibling relations, >2 people involved, etc.) then fight for them with a concrete plan as to what they should involve which minimizes as many problems as possible.

If you're simply opposed to the word marriage being used in the contract, then I have to say too bad because religion does not own the word marriage and it is the best word to use to describe the relationship type that fits with the contract, whether religion is involved in any way in the relationship or not. It is a waste of money to change the wording on marriage licenses just for this reason.

And we need marriage contracts, at least for the way the world is now. It is important. I can't list all the ways that it is important at this time, but I know we need legal marriages, which means government involvement, even if only for record keeping purposes to prove who is married to who at any given time.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

“Problem is, being homosexual does not prevent a homosexual from "being fruitful and multiplying". If a homosexual wants to procreate, he/she does. Procreation and sexual orientation are mutally exclusive.” - CaptainCourtesy

I haven’t suggested otherwise nor have I addressed homosexuals. I did addressed homosexuality and made the distinction in my last post correctly pointing out that heterosexuality is entirely consistent with God's command to multiply and so we can logically say that heterosexuality as designed is entirely consistent with God's command and so there is order is God's design.

The same cannot be said of homosexuality. It is inconsistent with God's command to be fuitful and multiply.
(Remember, we are talking about design of orientation and not physiology--which is not in question.)

And what I'm saying is that the design of orientation is irrelevant to procreation. Procreation is an act, a behavior. Orientation is not.

“biblegateway.com designed human parts? That's news to me.” - CaptainCourtesy

Well of course they didn’t design anything.

But you can find the “design plans” there.

Since I see no authorization from the designer on the site, either this is false or you are saying that biblegateway.com has violated copywrite laws. I am unaware of any lawsuits pending, so I must assume the former.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm against it because it violates my religious beliefs and longstanding tradition (which does factor in law).

In a nutshell.

Only if you are forced to marry someone of the same sex. You have no right to not be offended.

 

[Temporal]

It violates one's religious beliefs to know that someone else is doing something?

I have never heard of any scripture demand that a follower be responsible for what another person is doing. I'm pretty sure that one's relationship with God is one's own.

 

[Jerry]

Only if you are forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Where is that substantiated in scripture?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Where is that substantiated in scripture?

That's the point. It isn't.

 

[Jerry]

That's the point. It isn't.

So if you know your requirement "only if you are forced to marry someone of the same sex" is false, what is the point in making it? How does this advance the discussion?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So if you know your requirement "only if you are forced to marry someone of the same sex" is false, what is the point in making it? How does this advance the discussion?

You missed the point, Jerry. mac made a point saying that GM violates his religious beliefs. MY point is that it only violates his religious beliefs if HE is forced to marry someone of the same sex. There is no place in scripture that dictates this.

 

[ecofarm]

I believe the (legit) claim is that calling it marriage violates religious beliefs.

Then... I reply... If one doesn't accept civil unions and the dropping of marriage from state agenda, one is a bigot and pro-theocracy.

That's how I see it. I accept that marriage is a religious term and demand it be removed from statutes. I could go without civil unions too, but if people gotta have something legal then I guess that's ok.

Is it a matter of semantics? Yep. Do semantics keep people from having equal rights? Yep. World is f'd up? Yep.

 

[The Baron]

“And what I'm saying is that the design of orientation is irrelevant to procreation. Procreation is an act, a behavior. Orientation is not.” - CaptainCourtesy

Nobody is disagreeing with you. What has been called into question is the design of orientation. That is the discussion.

“Since I see no authorization from the designer on the site, either this is false or you are saying that biblegateway.com has violated copywrite laws. I am unaware of any lawsuits pending, so I must assume the former.” - CaptainCourtesy

You stated in your own post no. 117 that “God created the ability to be fruitful and multiply”--a direct reference to Genesis of the Bible.

If you are willing to use the Scriptures to support your own arguments then, rationally, you should have no objection to anyone else using the Scriptures to support their arguments.

Consistency is important.

And consistency demands that heterosexual orientation is God’s design and homosexual orientation is a breakdown of God’s design.

 

[Tucker Case]

What we beleive God to have done, and what we base things on exist within our idea of time. To say that time may not matter to God, while possibly entirely true, does not separate our beliefs in him from time. So, according to our beliefs...god did not create the Ipad, man did.

Gotcha. But evil and sin are supposed to predate man's existence, based on the stories about creation and the Lucifer's fall.

 

[mac]

Only if you are forced to marry someone of the same sex. You have no right to not be offended.

No, all gay marriage violates my religious beleifs. My religious beleifs are not secular law, and while I do not beleive that secular law should punish people for violating religious laws or rules, it does not change the fact that I beleive it to be wrong for anyone. So, if asked to vote on a proposition allowing or banning gay marriage, I will vote to ban it. If the vote goes the other way, than It will become legal and those that are so inclined can get married. I will still disagree with it, but will accept it as the law of the land. If the law allows enough things I disagree with to become legal....I can always move.

 

[mac]

So freedom of speech is vague but the 14th amendment is clear.

I think its not clear enough that the SCOTUS was able to create a right that didn't exist becuase of it. If everything were so clear, the SCOTUS would be out a job.

 

[tessaesque]

Proof that God himself recognized that he did not create sin.

Genesis 6
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

That passage in no way directly or implicitly states that God did not create sin, just that he observed sin had run rampant.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

No, all gay marriage violates my religious beleifs. My religious beleifs are not secular law, and while I do not beleive that secular law should punish people for violating religious laws or rules, it does not change the fact that I beleive it to be wrong for anyone. So, if asked to vote on a proposition allowing or banning gay marriage, I will vote to ban it. If the vote goes the other way, than It will become legal and those that are so inclined can get married. I will still disagree with it, but will accept it as the law of the land. If the law allows enough things I disagree with to become legal....I can always move.

So you think other people should have to live up to your morality? Impressive.

 

[mac]

You missed the point, Jerry. mac made a point saying that GM violates his religious beliefs. MY point is that it only violates his religious beliefs if HE is forced to marry someone of the same sex. There is no place in scripture that dictates this.

Should murder only concern you in so much as in your own behavior? You should not care if someone else does it?

 

[mac]

That passage in no way directly or implicitly states that God did not create sin, just that he observed sin had run rampant.

Why would God create free will if he predisposed all thought and action?

 

[tessaesque]

“This is patently false.” - tessaesque

And despite your protest an entire field of study made-up of science, physics, archeology, extra-biblical sources, etc., etc., etc., not only exists but thrives and support and give credence to the biblical narrative.

Perhaps you should take the time to study this area before engaging in such a patently false diatribe.

But, once again, all this is another debate…

That's the problem, I guess. I have researched it. I've read books, taken classes. I've studied Christianity and many other common religions (both extinct and in practice), and everything I said in my post is corroborated by those books and lessons. The burden of proof on the validity of the bible is on you, since you're the one asserting it to be fact.

 

[mac]

So you think other people should have to live up to your morality? Impressive.

No, but what I think is wrong, I think is wrong. People murder, steal, and rape all the time...I think that's wrong too.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

No, but what I think is wrong, I think is wrong. People murder, steal, and rape all the time...I think that's wrong too.

Right, but the things you listed hurt people. Gay marriage does not. You want people to follow your moral rules and not do what you think is wrong, just because you think it's wrong.

 

[mac]

Gotcha. But evil and sin are supposed to predate man's existence, based on the stories about creation and the Lucifer's fall.

They couldn't predate man's existence if only man is capable of sin.

 

[mac]

Right, but the things you listed hurt people. Gay marriage does not. You want people to follow your moral rules and not do what you think is wrong, just because you think it's wrong.

How do you know it doesn't? If someting is percieved to be wrong (whatever the justification)by people, the things existence does in deed "hurt" them.

Considering something to be wrong becuase it hurts people, is a moral...a value judgement, as well.