"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[LightHorseman]

But the male/female one is not fertile. So what makes them different from the homosexual couple, if the problem with homosexual couples is infertility?

Cue special pleading/goal post shifting.

In fact, I have a new business plan, I'm going to convert fork lifts specifically for the purpose of goal post shifting. I reckon they'd sell like hot cakes for anyone who is trying to justify their own personal prejudices, and boy, there seem to be a lot of them. Anyone want to invest? I tell ya, will be the next microsoft!

 

[tanzanos]

Hey Mr Taliban Talili banana..................

 

[David Brider]

No you are. I am saying same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Yes, and the reason you're giving (that they're unable to reproduce) can equally be applied to infertile opposite gender couples.

David.

 

[Morcova]

Yes, and the reason you're giving (that they're unable to reproduce) can equally be applied to infertile opposite gender couples.

David.

But then the double standard comes into play.

 

[Archer93]

Marriage laws are about procreation and child rearing, Therein lies the difference that you keep avoiding. Until you can address that concern you are not addressing my argument.

Artificial insemination, adoption, surrogacy and whatever other issues are not covered in marriage. They are already governed by existing law separate from marriage. Defining them after the fact as part of marriage when they have nothing to do with it is not a genuine argument about the topic of marriage.



Again, society has an interest in regulating people who actually have kids as well as other aspects of child rearing. Marriage has always been a part of that. It has been broken down, and the damage can be seen. These other issues you raise are legitimate issues, but to conflate them with the actual act of procreation is to do exactly what I keep saying gay marriage does -- redefines marriage in a way that simply defines away concerns that exist in society.

You want to argue that the very act of procreation itself is of no interest to the state in terms of regulation. You do this by defining that portion of the concerns within marriage law away as if it does not exist, when it demonstrably does. Why is that?





And I in my turn have not seen anyone argue against that point. What you and others have done however is to deny that there is anything unique at all about procreation itself that might need attention, and for which marriage has always served as a regulation.

This is simply an untrue argument, and as I have repeated, the breakdown of marriage and family has had a demonstrable effect on society.



And then, predictably, you try to make a personal attack at the end. It seems impossible that anyone supporting gay marriage can do it in any other way than to attack the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.

I have made this same argument over and over. It is not I, but you and the rest of the supporters of gay marriage who are not addressing the issue. I am doing this for a world full of reasons, not the least of which are my observations of how socialist policies have damaged the fabric of our society and even damaged my own personal life, and yet I am not the one who puts a vicious personal attack at the end of every post I make.

I just want you to see that there are issues here of deep concern that you are not addressing. That's my point, my goal, my hope. It is not about being mean to anyone. Please stop peppering your posts with that sort of presumption about my personal motives.

Alright. How does the state regulate procreation, and which of the marriage laws regulate procreation and childrearing?

I am aware of only one law that dictates who may or may not procreate- someone had posted on another thread that in some US states first cousins may marry only if they cannot procreate.
Can you give me an example of any other law that regulates procreation between non-related people?

I am sorry that some of my comments came across as a vicious personal attack, but attempting to deny same-sex couples the legal protections of marriage when they need them as much as any other non-childbearing couple is treating them badly.

There are many things that need addressing with regard to resolving some of the problems with society, but denying the stabalising influence of marriage to some people is not the way to do that.
I think your motivations are honest, but your premises are flawed.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

Yes, and the reason you're giving (that they're unable to reproduce) can equally be applied to infertile opposite gender couples.

Two things here.
Firstly yes the criteria could be based on fertility, but that is irrelevant to gay and the gender of the couples. The argument we are having is based on what you call gender and in that respect same sex couples are disqualified on both counts. So as fertility is what you guys proposed how would that help your argument?

Secondly there are a number of Christian couples I know who medically were told they were infertile and after prayer conceived and gave birth to healthy babies. Even Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not another lesbian!!

So in what does your faith lie?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

But the reason that one is fundamentally different to the other is the ability to reproduce, right?

Yes.

So what were gays doing in male/female partnerships? If they can they don’t need same sex partnerships, and if they have changed so can others. If they are bisexual then they wont mind being in male/female partnerships.

People can feel pushed to be “normal” often by families. That’s one reason. And just because a person has been male/female relationships in the past does not mean they want to in the future.

Ok well that’s not what many pro-gay advocates say, those who are adamant that sexual orientation cannot change. Pro-gay advocates never challenge each other’s inconsistencies.

Fertility is only an issue for at most two out of three of those groups, (you could make arguments either way about post menopausal women). Child free couples may well be fertile, but they don’t have children.

there is only one group male and female, all others are dysfunctional.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Can I make one point. We believe what the Bible says. I don’t mind having those belief called personal prejudices but in doing so those why make that statement are showing they don’t believe the Bible.
This isn’t so much personal prejudice but disbelief.Some of those who are criticising other for personal prejudice are actually just showing they dont believe.

 

[LightHorseman]

Ok well that’s not what many pro-gay advocates say, those who are adamant that sexual orientation cannot change. Pro-gay advocates never challenge each other’s inconsistencies.

Baloney. But once again, you are refusing to understand the difference between homosexuals and bisexuals.

 

[LightHorseman]

Can I make one point. We believe what the Bible says. I don’t mind having those belief called personal prejudices but in doing so those why make that statement are showing they don’t believe the Bible.
This isn’t so much personal prejudice but disbelief.Some of those who are criticising other for personal prejudice are actually just showing they dont believe.

We believe the Bible. We don't all believe the Bible means what you say it means.

 

[David Brider]

To David Brider,

Two things here.
Firstly yes the criteria could be based on fertility, but that is irrelevant to gay and the gender of the couples. The argument we are having is based on what you call gender and in that respect same sex couples are disqualified on both counts. So as fertility is what you guys proposed how would that help your argument?

So now you're saying it's not about ability to reproduce?



Well, at least you're consistent in your inconsistency.

So in what does your faith lie?

In God.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Can I make one point. We believe what the Bible says.

Me too.

Hey, we've found something we can agree on.

David.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

Me too.

But on the issue of same sex relationhsips, you dont. Thats the whole point, and indeed when some here have been writing that what the Bible says doesnt necessarily mean what it says, you didnt challenge it.
I think this is the crux of the matter for me and others the evidence is you simply do not believe what the Bible says as demonstrated by your not acknowledging the Bible quotes as meaning what they say.

NB even Romans 5:8, ....so if my sin was loving marriage, then Christ has freed me from that to do whatever sex I like.
One has to recognise what the sin is that Christ has died for, before one can know the love.

 

[David Brider]

To David Brider,
But on the issue of same sex relationhsips, you dont.

Actually, yes, on the issue of same-sex relationships I believe what the Bible says.

I don't believe what you think it says.

But I believe what it says.

David.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

Actually, yes, on the issue of same-sex relationships I believe what the Bible says.

so tell me what it says..

I don't believe what you think it says.

A quote from it is not what I think it says but what it says.

But I believe what it says.

So you believe that Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV 1 Corinthians 6:9) yes? becuase thats what it says. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%206;&version=31;

or the NKJV Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[David Brider]

To David Brider,
so tell me what it says..

About same-sex relationships? Practically nothing. A handful of verses that could refer to male-male sex (whether as a universal condemnation or in specific instance), and...that's about it.

A quote from it is not what I think it says but what it says.

No, but two people can read the same section of the Bible and come away with different ideas of what it's talking about. You read the second half of Romans 1 and are convinced it's talking about homosexuality. I read it and come to the conclusion that Paul's talking about some sort pagan orgy in which the sexual orientation of the participants isn't mentioned specifically (but given the available data, were most likely to have been heterosexual in their regular sex lives).

So you believe that Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV 1 Corinthians 6:9) yes? becuase thats what it says.

I'm not convinced that "homosexual offenders" is a particularly good translation of what Paul originally wrote, but that aside, yes.

David.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

About same-sex relationships? Practically nothing. A handful of verses that could refer to male-male sex (whether as a universal condemnation or in specific instance), and...that's about it.

I asked you to tell me what it say not what your opinion about what you think it says or doesn’t say. It was you who claimed you did believe what it says.

No, but two people can read the same section of the Bible and come away with different ideas of what it's talking about.

But you said you believe what it says not what it means. You still haven’t shown me what it says.

I'm not convinced that "homosexual offenders" is a particularly good translation of what Paul originally wrote, but that aside, yes.

then you don’t believe what it says, so don’t claim you do.

 

[David Brider]

To David Brider,
I asked you to tell me what it says...

And I told you what it says: practically nothing.

But you said you believe what it says not what it means. You still haven’t shown me what it says.

Okay then, if it'll make you any happier, here's what that particular passage says:

18 God shows his anger from heaven. It is against all the godless and evil things people do. They are so evil that they say no to the truth. 19 The truth about God is plain to them. God has made it plain.

20 Ever since the world was created it has been possible to see the qualities of God that are not seen. I'm talking about his eternal power and about the fact that he is God. Those things can be seen in what he has made. So people have no excuse for what they do.
21 They knew God. But they didn't honor him as God. They didn't thank him. Their thinking became worthless. Their foolish hearts became dark. 22 They claimed to be wise. But they made fools of themselves. 23 They would rather have statues of gods than the glorious God who lives forever. Their statues of gods are made to look like people, birds, animals and reptiles.
24 So God let them go. He allowed them to do what their sinful hearts wanted to. He let them commit sexual sins. They polluted one another's bodies by what they did.
25 They chose a lie instead of God's truth. They worshiped and served created things. They didn't worship the Creator. But he must be praised forever. Amen.
26 So God let them go. They were filled with shameful longings. Their women committed sexual acts that were not natural. 27 In the same way, the men turned away from their natural love for women. They burned with sexual longing for each other. Men did shameful things with other men. They suffered in their bodies for all the twisted things they did.
28 They didn't think it was important to know God. So God let them go. He allowed them to have dirty minds. They did things they shouldn't do.
29 They are full of every kind of sin, evil and ungodliness. They want more than they need. They commit murder. They want what belongs to other people. They fight and cheat. They hate others. They say mean things about other people. 30 They tell lies about them. They hate God. They are rude and proud. They brag. They think of new ways to do evil. They don't obey their parents. 31 They are foolish. They can't be trusted. They are not loving and kind. 32 They know that God's commands are right. They know that those who do evil things should die. But they continue to do those very things. They also approve of others who do them.

then you don’t believe what it says, so don’t claim you do.

Actually, yes I do. You do realise that the Bible wasn't actually written in English, don't you? So asking whether a particular translation is accurate isn't the same as not believing what the Bible says.

David.

 

[tanzanos]

And I thought that Christianity is all about love, compassion, and love thine enemies. With so much hate going around in this forum I am prone to to believe otherwise.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

Okay then, if it'll make you any happier, here's what that particular passage says:

Thanks. Interestingly you don’t give the translation and it does support what you say about the translation.
I see that it has translated the Greek ‘Chresis’ as love.
This is largely unique to gay theology and isn’t widely recognised as accurate in the slightest. For example in addition to the NIV and KJV based on strongs Romans 1:26-27

Can you give the translation please as this does suggest the biggest attack on God’s word and His truth is coming from gay theology.