No, you cant earn rights. They are endowed on us by our creator. No, marriage is biological, it is an organic unity between two persons, homosexuals cannot unite organically as I demonstrated earlier so they cannot marry.
Endowed on us by our Creator?
Prove it.
"Marriage is biological"? Sounds like a nonsensical statement. Not that marriage doesn't involve two biological beings, it's just that saying "marriage is biological" is like saying "painting it biological."
I am not, I demonstrated earlier in this thread that only the consummation of heterosexual marriage can biologically and organically unite two persons. This has always been the behavioral definition of marriage.
Relying on "It must be right because we've always done it that way" is just another losing argument.
That is not what we were discussing. We were discussing how do we recognize that God is good, not where our moral conscience comes from, those are two very different questions. We can move on to that question too if you want, but that is not what you asked.
A novel approach. Losing the argument, so you pretend you were never having it.
I can provide many examples of me experiencing Him helping me, but of course I cannot prove it with certainty just like you cannot prove that your wife loves you.
Good. So, you lose.
Such aspects of personal relationships cannot be proven with certainty.
True. so, please stop claiming them if you have no way of backing them up.
See above about personal relationships. I never claimed I could prove that God is good with absolute certainty.
Good.
@doubtingmerle and I win, then. You say God is the essence of goodness, but you can't prove it. It's just an unsubstantiated, and therefore meaningless, claim.
Yes but generally they are weeded out by human behavior and attraction. Most people are not attracted to mentally unstable people.
Irrelevant. The point is, you're claiming a double standard. You say that gay people should not be allowed to marry because its bad for society, but have no trouble with other people whose marriage would also be bad for society getting married.
If marriage is just based on letting people be happy, why do you limit it to two people? Why do you limit it to humans?
Already answered, in considerable detail. It is not my job to help you remember these things.
I have been debating atheists on websites like these for over 20 years and have noticed that atheists that post on these sites are much more skeptical than atheists I have talked to in the real world.
Well, they would be, wouldn't they? These are places where atheists and Christians come to debate beliefs.
Regardless, the point is: what you call over-skepticism is nothing more than common sense set in contrast to your illogical arguments.
It is the most important part because it is the only human behavior that can organically unite two persons.
Hmm. So a penis going into a vagina is the most important part of a marriage?
I've already explained, at length, why this is nonsense.
The organic uniting of two persons reinforces personhood. Gay sex cannot organically unite persons as I have demonstrated earlier.
This is just an empty claim and, as such, can be ignored.
By reinforcing persons society spreads mental and emotional stability. Mental and emotional stability produces successful and strong societies.
Double standard. Explained already.
There's a rule on Christian Forums that you are not allowed to speak of homosexuality in approving terms.
Science has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a cause. That cause according to the rules of logic has to have the characteristics of the Christian God in order to produce a universe like ours.
A much-debunked apologetic argument, answered already ad nauseum.
I never said I could, that is a straw man.
Good dodge! You claim it's true, but decide you don't need to prove it.
No, this response was to your claim that the Bible did not teach what I was arguing. I was just stating that contrary to your claim about the Bible it does. My argument regarding homosexuality is based on biology as I demonstrated above.
Honestly, I doubt it. I do think that you are aware that showing your argument is based on the Bible is a losing move, so you've been working very hard to avoid it. But since all of your arguments have been shown to be empty, I just have to assume that your entire stance is based on religious faith.
No, it is no more circular than defining what a dog is and making that definition the standard for what a dog is.
In order to define a dog, you must define it in terms of relating it to other things. But in your definition of God as goodness itself, you have nothing else to relate it to. Goodness is therefore completely arbitrary. God could say that anything was good, and it would be, because He said it was so.
Yes, God is who He is, in fact He himself said, I am Who I am.
The definition of circular reasoning.
We have a moral conscience to determine if He is good.
How did we get it? Either we developed it on our own, in which case there is no need for a God, or God gave it to us, in which case it cannot be used to prove Him.
No, As soon as you commit the genetic fallacy you lose.
A good general rule, but you can't apply it to Creationists. They've simply been proved wrong too many times, retreating from one iteration to another, desperately chasing a version of their religion that can survive in the courts.
Now, if you claim to be a creationist, you automatically lose.