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

[LuckyDan]

which i suspect might have a lot to do with why they are arguing in the first place.

geo.

Maybe, but they seem quite late in picking up the argument. I question their motives, tho, because I recall times before the SSM debate when gays scoffed at marriage and family.

I came across this quote from Karl Lagerfeld:

"I'm against it [gay marriage] for a very simple reason: In the '60s, they all said we had the right to the difference," Lagerfeld told Vice magazine. "And now, suddenly, they want a bourgeois life."

 

[Jetboogieman]

Maybe, but they seem quite late in picking up the argument. I question their motives, tho, because I recall times before the SSM debate when gays scoffed at marriage and family.

I came across this quote from Karl Lagerfeld:

Ah yes, one quote from a homophobe definitely backs up your position.

 

[Geo Patric]

Maybe, but they seem quite late in picking up the argument. I question their motives, tho, because I recall times before the SSM debate when gays scoffed at marriage and family.

I came across this quote from Karl Lagerfeld:

well... assholes, bellybuttons and opinions.... we all have em, not all are equally worth looking into.

and, ya know, there is no such thing as "an official homosexual political stance" that i am aware of. i am sure a lot STILL don't care about marriage itself, even if they DO care about equality. I do not care about marriage. i do care about equal protection for gays as much as i do for any other minority. whether they actually go through all that hoopla... well.. it makes some people happy, i suppose.

geo.

 

[The Baron]

“But that disagrees with Isaiah 45:7: ‘I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me. That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.’ (KJV)” - Tucker Case post no. 383

“To be fair, the KJV is the only one that translates the word as "evil" that I know of. But, utimately, the main point I'm trying to make isn't damaged by the fact that this is but one translation of the bible.” - Tucker Case post no. 413

I’ve got no problem with the KJV except that I don’t understand it. Beautiful language though…

And, by the way, I use the Bible Gateway site all the time. It is my favorite Bible site to use. Unfortunately I have a nasty habit of checking out our own DP site throughout the day at work (when time allows, of course). When a free moment presents itself I can on occasion toss out a quick rebuttal every now and again. However, for our discussion I do need a Bible handy and the firewall at work won’t allow me to access an on-line Bible (not that I need to be doing so at work).

When I looked up the passage in my Bible at home it uses the word “disaster” instead of “evil”. The footnotes at the bottom of the page make the following comments:

“The Hebrew word for ‘evil’ (translated ‘disaster’) represents natural calamity as well as moral evil. God in His perfection, does nothing morally evil. But since all events are subject to His control, He is ultimately responsible for all events in history and nature. Moral evil derives from the choices of human beings and the angels.”

“I am familiar with the reference. But you'll note that nowhere in that statement is there a claim that man created sin…” - Tucker Case

Agreed, only that sin was “introduced” into the world by man. As I have already posted, sin seems to have originated with Lucifer (Ezekiel 28).

“…nor is there any point where it says that God did not create teh sin.” - Tucker Case

So the lack of a denial by God that He did NOT create sin is evidence that He did create sin?

I’ve never denied assassinating John Kennedy. Is that evidence that I’m guilty?

"It only states that man is responsible for sin entering the world. The idea that god did not create sin is something you have simply made up, and you have not one shred of evidecne to support the idea from the bible i.e. a statement in the bible where someone else besides teh creator of all things created sin." - Tucker Case

Except Ezekiel 28.

“In truth, God created sin, just as any lawmaker creates crimes. By defining the crime, one creates the crime. It takes another person to engage in that behavior, but it is most certainly created by the person or people who have defined it. In other words: God defines what a sin is. Therefore God creates the sin. Man simply allows it to enter into the world by engaging in it.” - Tucker Case

This is an interesting idea. To your way of thinking, since God made the rules He made sin. But defining the act does not create the act. The crime is committed by the lawbreaker not the law-maker.

“To show that this is true, remember that a lack of people engaging in a certain crime does not make it any less of a crime to engage in the behavior which is defined as a crime.

For example, even if nobody were to murder anyone else, murder would still be a crime while the laws defining murder as a crime remianed in place. It would just be a crime which nobody engages in.” - Tucker Case

If what you are saying is true then it would make sense to put the law-maker on trial for murder when someone is killed and not the murderer.

But that doesn’t make sense.

We should also consider the alternative which would be for God not to have given us any laws which would naturally mean there would be no sin. But that would also naturally lead to anarchy and chaos and God has said that He “is not a God of disorder but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

“Teh same is true with sin. For sin to even exist, God must define it. In defining it, he creates it.” - Tucker Case

Your reasoning would also suggest that there is a problem with God’s law which are simply a reflection of His nature. And His nature is perfect as are His laws (Psalm 19:7).

The problem is with us.

 

[The Baron]

“Good. Then you agree with the fact that procreation is irrelevant to that design.” - CaptainCourtesy

That the “design” of homosexual orientation is irrelevant to homosexuals procreating? Yes, I agree. Homosexuals can naturally procreate. All humans are designed to procreate.

“I think I have stated, often, my theory on how sexual orientation is formed. It is a combination of the following factors: biology, genetics, body chemistry, and enviornment. This pertains to ANY orientation.” - CaptainCourtesy

It’s a very nice theory but only a theory. Nobody really knows. But it doesn’t change the fact that a homosexual orientation stands in contradiction with God’s created design.

“Actually, I was responding to someone ELSE who used that portion of scripture for their argument, noting IT'S inconsistency, considering that homosexuals CAN procreate. This demonstrates that this particular usage of scripture to support your side of the argument, fails.” - CaptainCourtesy

Scripture supporting my side of the argument fails? Oh, I very much doubt that. Please explain.

Oh, and Captain--while we are on the subject of homosexual orientation, did you know that there are no Scriptures that actually condemn the homosexual orientation as a sin?

 

[LuckyDan]

No Conservative should support Big Government infringement on individual rights.

The tack your taking in equating this to the con nemesis of "big government" ignores the conservative belief in traditional marriage. For government to refuse to recognize SSM is not an infringement of individual rights. It is the upholding of a standard.

 

[Jerry]

Right and the state still determines who can and cannot get a marriage license together.

That's right.

The state regulates the licenses it issues.

While there may be objection to one particular requirement on one specific license, it is valid for the state to regulate it's licenses.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The tack your taking in equating this to the con nemesis of "big government" ignores the conservative belief in traditional marriage. For government to refuse to recognize SSM is not an infringement of individual rights. It is the upholding of a standard.

So you believe then its the governments job to set a standard for people to live by?

 

[LuckyDan]

Ah yes, one quote from a homophobe definitely backs up your position.

Is this man a homophobe?

 

[Geo Patric]

well, THAT was pretty weak.

geo.

 

[joe six-pack]

The tack your taking in equating this to the con nemesis of "big government" ignores the conservative belief in traditional marriage.

What you are saying is that "conservatives" are inconsistent when criticizing the Government's opposition to personal freedom and happiness. Tradition doesn't dictate the Law, Conservatives know that, the US Constitution dictates the Law.

For government to refuse to recognize SSM is not an infringement of individual rights. It is the upholding of a standard.

Slavery was a standard also, but the 13th Amendment eliminated that one as well.

Free thinking people, such as Civil Libertarians, understand what the Equal Protection clause means.

 

[roguenuke]

That's right.

The state regulates the licenses it issues.

While there may be objection to one particular requirement on one specific license, it is valid for the state to regulate it's licenses.

It is only valid when such regulation obeys equal protection and is non-discriminatory.

For example, in order to get a driver's license, it has been deemed that a person must be of a certain age and have to pass certain tests as deemed necessary to safely drive in the state, all of which are valid restrictions because they are done so with the state interest of ensuring that competent people who know the rules of the road and how to drive are the only ones driving in order to try to reduce the amount of traffic accidents. The restrictions are not arbitrary or "traditional", but rather backed by knowledge about what and who causes road accidents most often, and they are updated (in some places, not as quickly as some would hope, I'm sure) as new information becomes available. However, it would be against equal protection standards to say that people who have no hair on their body are not allowed to get a driver's license because they are not trusted by other people or that they are in some minority of people or that they traditionally couldn't get a license (and, yes I am making this up, it is a theoretical example). The licensing authority of states still has to meet equal protection requirements, no matter what the license is.

The marriage license, however, is inaccurately named though since a person can get a marriage without the legal paperwork that goes with it being legally recognized by the government, unlike pretty much every other license there is. A person cannot legally drive without a driver's license. If they are caught driving, they will be punished. A person cannot practice in those professions that are licensed without some sort of license to do so. If they are caught, they will be punished. The same cannot be said for a marriage. A person can get married and live a married life with whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to get the government offered benefits/rights that go with the marriage without getting into any legal trouble for doing so, in most states. And in those states that might try to get them in trouble, for something such as polygamy or cohabitation law violations, they could easily fight it in court and most likely have such laws overturned.

 

[LuckyDan]

What you are saying is that "conservatives" are inconsistent when criticizing the Government's opposition to personal freedom and happiness. Tradition doesn't dictate the Law, Conservatives know that, the US Constitution dictates the Law.

Slavery was a standard also, but the 13th Amendment eliminated that one as well.

Free thinking people, such as Civil Libertarians, understand what the Equal Protection clause means.

If the day comes when the majority of Americans believe as you do that failing to recognize SSM is as wrong as allowing slavery, then SSMs will be recognized.

 

[LuckyDan]

So you believe then its the governments job to set a standard for people to live by?

Not exactly what I said. Marriage is older than the USA, it wasn't an invention of Congress. But aren't laws standards of sorts?

 

[roguenuke]

If the day comes when the majority of Americans believe as you do that failing to recognize SSM is as wrong as allowing slavery, then SSMs will be recognized.

Actually, a slight majority already does believe that SSM should be recognized, according to the last several polls.

It really doesn't matter though because this country has insurance against tyranny of the majority when it comes to issues of rights and them being denied. If Congress and states don't change their laws against SSM soon, a case or two will reach the SCOTUS who will most likely change them for those holdouts, just as the SCOTUS did for other issues, such as interracial marriage and sodomy laws.

 

[joe six-pack]

If the day comes when the majority of Americans believe as you do that failing to recognize SSM is as wrong as allowing slavery, then SSMs will be recognized.

It's wrong for similar reasons--e.g. the Constitution--not an ethically equal offense.

 

[LuckyDan]

Then it's just a matter of time.

 

[Jerry]

It is only valid when such regulation obeys equal protection and is non-discriminatory.

Which it does currently.

For example, in order to get a driver's license, it has been deemed that a person must be of a certain ageand have to pass certain tests as deemed necessary to safely drive in the state, all of which are valid restrictions because they are done so with the state interest of ensuring that competent people who know the rules of the road and how to drive are the only ones driving in order to try to reduce the amount of traffic accidents. The restrictions are not arbitrary or "traditional", but rather backed by knowledge about what and who causes road accidents most often, and they are updated (in some places, not as quickly as some would hope, I'm sure) as new information becomes available. However, it would be against equal protection standards to say that people who have no hair on their body are not allowed to get a driver's license because they are not trusted by other people or that they are in some minority of people or that they traditionally couldn't get a license (and, yes I am making this up, it is a theoretical example). The licensing authority of states still has to meet equal protection requirements, no matter what the license is.

The marriage license, however, is inaccurately named though since a person can get a marriage without the legal paperwork that goes with it being legally recognized by the government, unlike pretty much every other license there is. A person cannot legally drive without a driver's license. If they are caught driving, they will be punished. A person cannot practice in those professions that are licensed without some sort of license to do so. If they are caught, they will be punished. The same cannot be said for a marriage. A person can get married and live a married life with whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to get the government offered benefits/rights that go with the marriage without getting into any legal trouble for doing so, in most states. And in those states that might try to get them in trouble, for something such as polygamy or cohabitation law violations, they could easily fight it in court and most likely have such laws overturned.

Well, SSM is more like driving on the left side of the road.

As I've argued many times:

...it has been deemed that a person must be of a certian age and have to pass certain tests as deemed necessary to safely drive in the state, all of which are valid restrictions because they are done so with the state interest of ensuring that competent people who know the rules of the road and how to drive are the only ones driving in order to try to reduce the amount of traffic accidents.

...let marriage reform establish those pre-marital requirements, with the state interest of ensuring that competent people who know how to have a successful marriage are the only ones marrying in order to try to reduce the divorce rate.

You just want add more crappy driver to the road, under the argument that so many crappy drivers are already on the road.

Well **** that. A bad driver is a bad driver I don't give a **** who else in your car or what kind of car you drive. I'm anti-bad-driver, you're pro-Mad Max and the Thunderdome.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It takes no skill to post "nu uuuh". You can say I haven't given evidence in support of my argument, but that doesn't remove the hyperlinks I've placed in this thread. You can claim the homosexuality is a mere difference, but that doesn't account for the biological incongruity.

I'm not particularly interested in the fact that you disagree. That's your personal opinion, and it changes nothing.

Your links did not prove your position or give it any validity whatsoever. Your personal opinion on this is devoid of any actual evidence.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Left handedness is also a physical feature related to brain development...as is eye and foot dominance. Orientation is not linked to any physical characteristic of the body. Orientation is little more than psycho-babble.

And since you have no evidence of this, once again, another poster gives us some post-fail.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Let's just have an understanding, right here, that any and every benefit to the individual you can cite, I'm going to say is a secondary benefit meant to support the raising of children.

Whether we agree on that point or not, let's just understand that this is what will occur every time anyone cites individual benefits.

The utility of this understanding is the realization that citing individual benefits is not going to be a useful argument.

And let's just understand that everytime you do that, I will dismiss your argument as irrelevant. All you are doing is ignoring facts that are inconvienient to your position. As long as you understand that is all you are doing, I have little problem with you doing it... but I will point it out each time you do.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Secondary benefits, yes. Marriage is not principally about the individual, though.

Inconvienient facts, Jerry. Sorry it hurts your argument, but it does and does quite well.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Actually Cap, being homosexual could be argued to be not merely "not an aid to survival", but contra-survival... at least in terms of the species as a whole and the local "tribe" in particular.

That argument is blurred (and partly refuted even!) by the fact that some who self-label as "homosexual" have also married conventionally and had children. Some would label those people "bisexual" rather than homosexual... others would argue that behaviors and orientation are seperate things. We've had that debate before and it tends to turn into a circular argument of self-justification. Defining exactly what is "homosexual" appears to be a bit difficult, as apparently a lot of self-labeled homosexuals engage in hetero behavior at times. Sometimes this is for a period of time and then it ceases; other times it is an ongoing interrmittent variation; in some cases people have "Switched back" to hetero with seeming permanence.

In short, we don't seem to have a lot of really solid answers and facts which are beyond dispute.

The biggest counter-argument to "homosexuality is a birth defect" is actually that it is TOTALLY unproven that homosexuality is inborn or genetic. An attempt was made to find a homosexual gene once we began to sequence human DNA: no such gene has been found. Experts remain divided as to when orientation is fixed, and how. Perhaps there is no single answer.

Just some thoughts...

G.

The problem with your entire argument, Goshin, is the problem that arguments like yours tend to expose. It's not the HOMOSEXUAL gene that is being searched for, but the SEXUAL ORIENTATION gene. Of course, and I've challenged others on this before, if you can identify the gene that identifes heterosexuality, please point it out to me.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

“Good. Then you agree with the fact that procreation is irrelevant to that design.” - CaptainCourtesy

That the “design” of homosexual orientation is irrelevant to homosexuals procreating? Yes, I agree. Homosexuals can naturally procreate. All humans are designed to procreate.

Excellent. Then we agree that procreation is irrelevant to this argument.

“I think I have stated, often, my theory on how sexual orientation is formed. It is a combination of the following factors: biology, genetics, body chemistry, and enviornment. This pertains to ANY orientation.” - CaptainCourtesy

It’s a very nice theory but only a theory. Nobody really knows. But it doesn’t change the fact that a homosexual orientation stands in contradiction with God’s created design.

1) I have always stated it's a theory.
2) Not in the least. You have already agreed that homosexuals can be fruitful and multiply and that their orientation does not prevent that... since procreation is irrelevant to this argument. Now, if you want to backtrack on this, we can go over it again, but I'll bet that we will get the same result.

“Actually, I was responding to someone ELSE who used that portion of scripture for their argument, noting IT'S inconsistency, considering that homosexuals CAN procreate. This demonstrates that this particular usage of scripture to support your side of the argument, fails.” - CaptainCourtesy

Scripture supporting my side of the argument fails? Oh, I very much doubt that. Please explain.

I think I already did. Several times.

Oh, and Captain--while we are on the subject of homosexual orientation, did you know that there are no Scriptures that actually condemn the homosexual orientation as a sin?

Of course I do. Another point that tends to make the argument rather silly.

 

[Jerry]

And let's just understand that everytime you do that, I will dismiss your argument as irrelevant. All you are doing is ignoring facts that are inconvienient to your position. As long as you understand that is all you are doing, I have little problem with you doing it... but I will point it out each time you do.

Welcome to the club, have a slice of pie eace