Christian argument on Gay Marriage

[Edmund Burke]

No false dilemma at all. Read what he said again - "When you push for laws that can only be argued from a religious standpoint, a government run by that religion can be the only goal in mind." (Emphasis mine).

They're not my words - they're the OP's - and I don't know how one can make it more black and white than his particular sentence construct did.

Actually, no, OP stands for Opening Post. You quoted from post#7, which is not the Opening Post. Just an FYI.

There are no "onlys" in the argument against homosexual marriage, and certainly not "only religious" ones. But when the premise is "only" as stated, there are "only" two options via standpoints - "only" a religious standpoint or "only" a non-religious (or, anti (opposite)-religious) standpoint.

Not at all. Your implied polarity is not reasonable. You cannot ignore the zero position, the position of no religion at all. You cannot have a religious (+) and an anti-religious (-) without recognizing the non-religious (0) in the middle.

And besides, I have given the OP an opportunity to respond to my question - whether that was his intent or not - allowing for the fact that that particular sentence construct may not have conveyed his true meaning. Maybe it's best left up to him to explain what he meant when he chooses to return to the thread...

It might be because you are using the term OP incorrectly, and he is familiar with the term OP he might not know you are talking to him.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

I have no chains. Go get married to a farm animal for all I care.

You stated that you vote for Biblical value. I am not saying this is bad, but asking for you to stay out of my personal decisions.

Then what are you doing on this site? Sowing discord?

No, its a learning experience.

Who cares about your sex life? I sure don't.

Its hard to believe that when you are the one responding and taking the time out to address my statement.

You wanna live like that- it's your right to do whatever your choose. Just don't try and to psycho sodomize me into believing that your choices are good.

I'm not saying my life is good by a Christian standard. Though I'm interested in what you mean by Psycho Sodomy and " You wanna live like that".

Who's stopping you?

US federal and State Government are holding up my decisions in my current state and 44 others.

You just have a problem with why and you seem to get mad when someone disagrees with your beliefs.

I'm not mad, and I haven't addressed my religious beliefs in this thread.

I guess you want us to all just shut up.

No, I don't mind dissenting opinion. Though I would prefer for others to respect my own liberty within my own home.

Welcome to America and our Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure if you are talking to me, because I didn't bring that up at all.

Has anyone told you that you can move to a State that allows Same Sex marriage?

Yes, but why should I? You going to give me the money and Job in one of the States that offers such contracts? There is also no guarantee that my contract will be recognized in the other 45 States in times of crisis or legal need.

If you love him so much- move.

I love my country enough to recognize when liberty needs addressed. Its not a matter of moving, its a matter of civil liberty and respect for my fellow people.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It is our job to lead and direct as best we can. As parents we do this. As friends. Government of man can follow the will of man. But if that man be without God, government will be to.
All good law is a mirror reflection of Gods law. And bad law reflects what?

Improvements to God's law?

Really, when one looks at the laws God gave concerning the rape of children, I think or modern day approach is quite a few time better than just fining the rapist and forcing the child to marry him.

I think the laws that ban child marriage in 48/49 states (I know one allows it, and another I think but am not sure) is probably an improvement to God's law in the same area again.

Once again, I say the same with the treatment of homosexuals. Killing them really doesn't help.

But the big one I like our improvement upon is no long killing witches. Of course, perhaps I'm going along with the saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" a bit too much, but I have engaged in many activities which, if not by today's standards, would have been considered witch craft in the past. Especially with chemistry.

 

[lawtonfogle]

edmond Burke:

Man you, and those like you, are dim witted. Did I say that or is this your best attempt at creating a Straw Man argument.

As people we must govern our public servants Mr. Wizard!
You want liars in office? Vote for them.
You want theives in Office? Vote for them.

But if you want good government you have to vote for honest and trustworthy people. And these, my mental midgets, are Biblical values. (Can't believe that I had to even draw this picture for you.)

There is a difference in a value being desirable because it comes from the Bible and a value being virtuous in and of itself. I think the values in question are those which are not generally considered virtuous in and of themselves.


P.S. Would you call honesty a Buddhist value as well? I mean, Buddha had some pretty good values listed out, many of which I wouldn't mind if our politicians actually followed. Does this mean I support our government being Buddhist? Nope.

 

[Celticflower]

All I want is to take my partner and commit to him in a binding way in either a courthouse contract or religion of our choice.

Personally, I support you up until the boldened part.

I cannot stop what secular society wants to accept, and if that is same sex marriage, oh well. In the long run it just means more clients for divorce lawyers. But I don't think that any religion that doesn't want to accept such a marriage, or perform such a union, should have to. Keep your bedroom out of my church and I will stay out of your bedroom.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Personally, I support you up until the boldened part.

I cannot stop what secular society wants to accept, and if that is same sex marriage, oh well. In the long run it just means more clients for divorce lawyers. But I don't think that any religion that doesn't want to accept such a marriage, or perform such a union, should have to. Keep your bedroom out of my church and I will stay out of your bedroom.

That's not what I meant at all. I should have said Church/faith of my choosing. I have no desire to force anyone to do a ceremony they don't want to. There are plenty of churches, denominations, and religions that are willing to perform ceremonies for Same sex marriages. But they can't involve the legal side.

I should have worded it better, because I have no desire to force anyone to do anything.

 

[d'Sasster]

Actually, no, OP stands for Opening Post. You quoted from post#7, which is not the Opening Post. Just an FYI.

Not at all. Your implied polarity is not reasonable. You cannot ignore the zero position, the position of no religion at all. You cannot have a religious (+) and an anti-religious (-) without recognizing the non-religious (0) in the middle.

It might be because you are using the term OP incorrectly, and he is familiar with the term OP he might not know you are talking to him.

ROTFL - Dude! "OP" also stands for Original Poster. ...something btw that can be construed contextually when one uses the possessive in reference to the OP (e.g. "They're not my words - they're the OP's ...")

 

[Zlex]

There are no "onlys" in the argument against homosexual marriage, and certainly not "only religious" ones.

There are non-religious arguments against marriage? 'Marriage' is purely a religious concept.

If a religion defines 'marriage' as between a man and a box of Kleenex, then the proper response of the state is, "Marriage? Religion? What's that?" Though, I'd say the state is free to not recognize such a relationship as a 'civil union', if the state defines a 'civil union' as a union between consenting adults.

I don't understand how in this nation, under its constitution, religions can access the state to enforce purely religious concepts via law.

The attempt to enforce a single religious definition of marriage on the entire tribe is just the same old same old, and that is, religion as politics on the way to war.

Free people are perfectly capable of voluntarily submitting to authority, past and present, of weighing thought and agreeing with it or not. And, free people are perfectly capable of voluntarily walking into Neitsche's retail religion outlet and donning a suit off the rack. Free people are perfectly capable of entering into and benefitting from group arrangements of all kinds, including unions and corporations and political contexts and commerce and marriage and even 'history.' All of that is consistent with freedom ... as long as what drives them is not the barrel of a gun pointed at them by other/others.

Who is God? What does he want? Does he exist? Why did he put us here? What am I supposed to do with my life? It is one thing to voluntarily share consideration of those fundamental religious questions. It is another thing to assert, at the point of a gun, that there is a Universal, Totalitarian, One Size Fits All answer to those questions.

That is when religion lurches into politics on the way to every war ever fought.

Free nations are built on free associations, plural, of individuals, plural, not forced association of all of them into an 'it.' Religious zealots have been trying to coerce them by force into an 'it.' Is America a free state, or is it a totalitarian theocracy?

 

[Belk]

There are non-religious arguments against marriage? 'Marriage' is purely a religious concept.

No, actually it started out as a secular institution as a means of controlling property and political alliance.

 

[Edmund Burke]

edmond Burke:

Man you, and those like you, are dim witted. Did I say that or is this your best attempt at creating a Straw Man argument.

Interesting accusation. Please post a definition of straw man and then explain how I committed the fallacy.

As people we must govern our public servants Mr. Wizard!
You want liars in office? Vote for them.
You want theives in Office? Vote for them.

But if you want good government you have to vote for honest and trustworthy people. And these, my mental midgets, are Biblical values. (Can't believe that I had to even draw this picture for you.)

Are you claiming they are exclusive to the Bible?

Your ilk have too many cracks for me to waste my time with.

Do what you want. But I am not supposed to sit in a corner while you psych sodomize people with your manipulative use of Straw Man arguments.

Interesting claim. How about a one on one regarding the role of government in religion. Since I only "psych sodomize people" someone of your mental caliber should easily be able to handle the discourse.

 

[Edmund Burke]

ROTFL - Dude! "OP" also stands for Original Poster. ...something btw that can be construed contextually when one uses the possessive in reference to the OP (e.g. "They're not my words - they're the OP's ...")

So the original poster is not the first poster? If it can be any poster you want to call the OP doesn't it sort of remove any utility?

 

[Edmund Burke]

Truly Narcissistic. Some people are just self absorbed. Love your comment!

Any desire for that one on one discussion?

 

[Edmund Burke]

Sorry, you have a pusillanimous nature that requires most of your energy to cover up.
I don't want to waste what little time you have left either.
Have a nice day.

You have nothing to be afraid of. Surely you're not an empty vessel, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? I'll start thread if you like?

 

[GoodGuy32]

You have nothing to be afraid of. Surely you're not an empty vessel, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? I'll start thread if you like?

Why are you afraid to discuss your opinion in this thread? Do you need your own rules or something?

Empty vessel?

 

[Edmund Burke]

Why are you afraid to discuss your opinion in this thread? Do you need your own rules or something?

Sure. One on one discussion? Source documentation and everything. I will start a new thread, but I will be out of town for three days. I will not have time until Tuesday really, but this can go on for a while.

You game?

 

[d'Sasster]

So the original poster is not the first poster? If it can be any poster you want to call the OP doesn't it sort of remove any utility?

Now it's absolutely clear you're being willfully and purposefully disruptive and obnoxious.

I no more believe you're a conservative, or a Republican than I would Barack Obama - let alone sincere in your reasons for posting here.

Your reasoning has been utterly and consistently inane and nonsensical, and your belligerance, pugnacity, and contrariness totally transparent.

Were you exposed as a troll wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Ignore]

 

[Edmund Burke]

Now it's absolutely clear you're being willfully and purposefully disruptive and obnoxious.

I no more believe you're a conservative, or a Republican than I would Barack Obama - let alone sincere in your reasons for posting here.

Your reasoning has been utterly and consistently inane and nonsensical, and your belligerance, pugnacity, and contrariness totally transparent.

Were you exposed as a troll wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Ignore]

How has my reasoning been "utterly and consistently inane and nonsensical, and your belligerance, pugnacity, and contrariness totally transparent."

All bluster. None of the above means anything other than you cannot deal with the subjects.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Given that human marriage is just our version of mating (like coyotes who mate for life) I don't see how you can say "homosexual marriage". It's like saying "square circles". Homosexuality does not exist in biology.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Given that human marriage is just our version of mating (like coyotes who mate for life) I don't see how you can say "homosexual marriage". It's like saying "square circles". Homosexuality does not exist in biology.

This is a dubious comparison, for a few reasons. You are likening a malleable anthropogenic social institution to a non-malleable geometric object. Apples and oranges. Second, you are implying that the basis for marriage is entirely reproductive, and in doing so you are ignoring what I believe is the most crucial center-piece: love. If we accept that marriage is simply a reproductive union then we must in turn accept that heterosexual couples incapable of reproducing are effectively 'not married', and that elderly couples who pass their reproductive years effectively cease to 'be married', or even more perversely, that simply having sex is tantamount to marriage.

 

[Belk]

Given that human marriage is just our version of mating (like coyotes who mate for life) I don't see how you can say "homosexual marriage". It's like saying "square circles". Homosexuality does not exist in biology.

Uh, no. Sex would be our version of mating. Marriage is a complex social institution centered around inheritance and social alliance.