Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[WindStaff]

They were irrationally afraid of same-sex attraction and sexual activity. I never said that this makes them evil. Having a phobia is usually a neutral accusation. "Homophobic" only has a negative connotation because it's against a group of people and therefore often leads to discrimination and abuse. As long as no action is taken against the group in question, it's really just up to the person to work through his or her fear. So yes, I would call them homophobic.

Also, I'm not sure why you seem to think this is the entirety of my perception of these civilizations and their religious systems. It's simply one observation.

No, you are simply irrationally fond of same-sex attraction.

There religions dictated something very simple: God made man and woman. They have no natural way of sex between two men or women. In reality, the proper definition of sex itself cannot be applicable in homosexual acts, because it's about procreation.

 

[Cearbhall]

"Homophobic". If that's how you perceive ancient people and their sacred religions in which they were dying for then go right ahead. Were they homophobic or are you just consumed by a gay agenda?

I'd also like to make it clear that I condemn ethnocentricity. I try not to judge them for their homophobia. Passing judgment would not be productive and would serve no academic purpose. I recognize that it would be difficult to avoid homophobia in a society that does not have modern science and does not value classical liberalism.

 

[Skaloop]

Mosaic Law dictates that homosexuals be put to death.

Then why aren't you putting them to death?

 

[Aldebaran]

They were irrationally afraid of same-sex attraction and sexual activity. I never said that this makes them evil. Having a phobia is usually a neutral accusation. "Homophobic" only has a negative connotation because it's against a group of people and therefore often leads to discrimination and abuse. As long as no action is taken against the group in question, it's really just up to the person to work through his or her fear. So yes, I would call them homophobic.

Also, I'm not sure why you seem to think this is the entirety of my perception of these civilizations and their religious systems. It's simply one observation.

If God tells you to do something, it's not a "religious system" any more than a child being told what to do by his parents is one. Calling something a religious system just trivializes it.

 

[Cearbhall]

If God tells you to do something, it's not a "religious system" any more than a child being told what to do by his parents is one. Calling something a religious system just trivializes it.

It's not trivialization. It's an objective way of discussing religions. I would use the same language to refer to any other religion. I have great respect for religions, but that does not mean I believe in them or would think of them as anything more than man-made philosophical systems.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not trivialization. It's an objective way of discussing religions. I would use the same language to refer to any other religion. I have great respect for religions, but that does not mean I believe in them or would think of them as anything more than man-made philosophical systems.

That's the trivialization I'm referring to. Christians believe the bible to be God's message to us and how we're to live. It's not something man-made. So when we give biblical passages about why we don't condone homosexuality or SSM, it's not based on a man-made philosophical system, or "homophobia" or a hatred of anyone. I think this is a misunderstanding that causes so many arguments to take place.

 

[Cearbhall]

That's the trivialization I'm referring to. Christians believe the bible to be God's message to us and how we're to live. It's not something man-made.

I understand. Those are your beliefs. I respect your beliefs. They are not my own. I believe it is man-made.

I'm not at all sure what you want from me. It would seem, then, that by not being Christian, I'm automatically trivializing Christianity, in your opinion. You're not allowing for any room between these two spaces. I respect your beliefs, but I simply don't share them. That does not mean that I'm trivializing them.

 

[Belk]

Biased homosexual apologetics.

Oh man

There's so many things wrong with that source. First, the moving deception- making it about the idea that ALL homosexuals are molesters instead of the idea that there is a valid trend in homosexual culture and molestation.

And then, trying to differentiate male-male molestation with homosexuality based on the fact that most all of them report no homosexual sex life.
It is true that typically, there is no prior homosexual tendency. It is also true, however, that molesters tend to be molesters because of sexual frustration- not being able to reap such activity or at the very least too insecure to seek it. This no doubt explains why priesthoods, who practice celibacy, unfortunately have the potential for molesters in their ranks.

I could go on and on, but why? You choose to listen to whatever serves your cognitive dissonance, there's no reason to tell you what you know is true.

Yes, why bother since you have consistently failed to provide anything resembling evidence for all your assertions even when asked to do so. Your fruit is very bitter. Good day sir.

 

[Marius27]

No, you are simply irrationally fond of same-sex attraction.

There religions dictated something very simple: God made man and woman. They have no natural way of sex between two men or women. In reality, the proper definition of sex itself cannot be applicable in homosexual acts, because it's about procreation.

No it isn't. Sex/same-sex relationships has more purpose than just procreation. Try reading a biology book sometime. The entire animal kingdom engages in same-sex behavior for reasons not related to procreation and it serves a legitimate purpose.

And where do intersex people fit into your black and white worldview?

 

[Marius27]

Biased homosexual apologetics.

Oh man

There's so many things wrong with that source.

I could go on and on, but why? You choose to listen to whatever serves your cognitive dissonance, there's no reason to tell you what you know is true.

Oh the irony.

 

[Marius27]

The definition of marriage was defined in 325AD, adopted by Rome and carried through Europe to America.

It's not debatable what the definition of marriage is

No, actually the definition of marriage in the Roman Empire did not follow modern day Christian marriage. In fact, it wasn't until the 13th Century that the Church even declared it a sacrament, and Protestants directly opposed the Church's view of marriage.

You need to stop making random things up, because it's obvious you've not done any research on any subject you post here.

 

[Marius27]

The majority of Americans are appallingly uninformed and uninterested about things beyond what they see on TV and in the movies.

And what excuses you from the group of appallingly uninformed? You seem to express an uninformed opinion on these forums daily. Why should we view your arguments as valid?

 

[Marius27]

Is anyone arguing that here? How do you equate Christians trying to defend the traditional definition of marriage with wishing gay people were never born? You guys get completely off topic so often that you forget what the discussion was about.

Based on your worldview, it would be better if gays were never born since they are condemned to a life of loneliness, depression, and misery or else they burn in hell.

Gee, what exciting options.

 

[Marius27]

Yeah, the 90% percent who disagree with you few are getting their last minute Christmas shopping done.

And no, the definition of marriage hasn't changed through history. It's always been between a man and a woman, why do you think it wasn't until recently that homosexuals are even allowed to marry?

Same-sex marriages have existed for most of history. In Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, among Native Americans, etc.

Perhaps you should do some Christmas shopping for a history book.

 

[WindStaff]

No, actually the definition of marriage in the Roman Empire did not follow modern day Christian marriage. In fact, it wasn't until the 13th Century that the Church even declared it a sacrament, and Protestants directly opposed the Church's view of marriage.

You need to stop making random things up, because it's obvious you've not done any research on any subject you post here.

Making random things up? You just to tried falsify my argument with something hardly even relevant. What does Church rite have to do with Western world being a Christian state with a definition of male and female marriage?

You are absurd. And then saying I haven't done research
I'm done with this thread. It's obvious that it would now just be a waste of time arguing with such nonsense.

 

[Strathos]

Despite what so many people would have you believe, you don't have to be homophobic to be a Christian.

 

[WindStaff]

Despite what so many people would have you believe, you don't have to be homophobic to be a Christian.

"Homophobic" is a stupid, made up derogatory term for people who simply homosexuality as wrong.

There should be a word, which would be much more warranted, for people with an obsessive pro-gay agenda- a movement in which the subjects aren't even leading.

 

[David Brider]

That's the trivialization I'm referring to. Christians believe the bible to be God's message to us and how we're to live. It's not something man-made.

To us as Christians, no it isn't. But can you understand how to non-Christians it would appear that it is? (Or at least, might be?)

So when we give biblical passages about why we don't condone homosexuality or SSM, it's not based on a man-made philosophical system, or "homophobia" or a hatred of anyone.

I think it's fair enough to say that some - possibly most - of those Christians who are opposed to either homosexuality in general, or to same-sex marriage in particular, base their stance purely on their reading of the Bible and have no axe to grind. There are though, sadly, those who appear (and I stress appear) to use what is written in the Bible as an excuse for hatred, or as a cover for pre-existing homophobia. Such Christians may be in a minority, but they definitely exist.

(Also, in the interests of honesty - there are Christians who aren't opposed to either homosexuality or same-sex marriage.)

 

[David Brider]

"Homophobic" is a stupid, made up derogatory term for people who simply homosexuality as wrong.

No. It's a word with a specific meaning - it describes a person with an irrational fear or hatred of homosexual people and/or homosexuality.

It doesn't simply mean "people who think homosexuality is wrong," although granted, it does get tossed about quite a bit and may sometimes be mis-applied to people who are part of that latter group but who not in any meaningful sense homophobic.

There should be a word, which would be much more warranted, for people with an obsessive pro-gay agenda- a movement in which the subjects aren't even on the front lines of.

If you mean people who support LGBT rights but are not themselves LGBT, the word "ally" is generally used.

 

[WindStaff]

No. It's a word with a specific meaning - it describes a person with an irrational fear or hatred of homosexual people and/or homosexuality.

It's a stupid made up word used by supporters of homosexuality to throw at others. At the drop of a hat, it will labeled upon someone. A manipulative word to distract from the main points of disagreement.

Liberals love their labels though. Notice that the alleged definition is synonymous to misogyny, and how a person who is simply anti-feminist is automatically seen as misogynistic.

A bunch of tripe is what it is, trumping words and not even using them accurately.