• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How Quick we are to Judge!

Followers4christ

Love my wife, 2 sons and Daughter. God is great!!
Jun 17, 2005
5,103
805
Caldwell, Idaho
Visit site
✟30,651.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Leviticus Only applied to the jews but Leviticus 15:22 condemns Homosexuality and the new testament also condemns Homosexuality.The new testament is for Chritians to follow and in Romans 1:26 it condemns Homosexuality.God Bless

Romans 1:26 "for this reason god gave them over to degrading passions for their women exchange the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the men abandon the natural function of the women and burned in their desire towards one another men with men commiting indecent acts and recieving in their own persons the due penalty of their error".
 
Upvote 0

outlaw

the frugal revolutionary
Aug 22, 2005
2,814
268
49
✟4,376.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Followers4christ said:
Leviticus Only applied to the jews but Leviticus 15:22 condemns Homosexuality and the new testament also condemns Homosexuality.The new testament is for Chritians to follow and in Romans 1:26 it condemns Homosexuality.God Bless

Romans 1:26 "for this reason god gave them over to degrading passions for their women exchange the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the men abandon the natural function of the women and burned in their desire towards one another men with men commiting indecent acts and recieving in their own persons the due penalty of their error".



Well the ten commandments are in the old testament and they are not repeated in the new testament.…Are the ten commandments also only for Jews? Or are you saying that only SOME parts of the old testament are ignorable by modern Christians?
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
10,639
10,389
the Great Basin
✟403,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Buzz Dixon said:
See, here's where you (rhetorical) keep running into the same logical falllacy again and again and again and again and again:

African-Americans reproduce. Europeans reproduce. Tall people reproduce. Dwarves even reproduce (kinda hit & miss, but often enough for multi-generations).

Gays do not reproduce.

Oh, sure, they can biologically produce offspring, and those offpsring or offspring they've adopted are extremely likely to grow up sharing their parents' views on tolerating homosexual behavior.

But the children are no more likely to be actual homosexuals themselves than any random dip in the gene pool.

In this sense, gays are like Christians: They can not biologically produce a new generation of their own kind, they must recruit others in.

In the case of gays, they need to persuade those who have phsyiological and/or psychological leanings towards homosexual behavior to embrace the self-defined gay lifestyle. With Christians they must educate their children then do evangelical outreach to share the good news.

The difference between the gay sub-culture and (to pick just one example) African-American sub-culture is that the African-American sub-culutre is spread through multiple biological generations. There are genetic lines going back hundreds of years even if the names of the people on those lines have been lost to history. There are families and interlinking relations that permeate the entire culture.

Gays have no bloodlines in the sense of homosexual orientation. Yes, gays are members of family trees, but their "gayness" is an apparently random mutation that does not breed true.

Remember the dwarves (or, as many prefer to be called now, little people) I mentioned above? If two dwarves marry, there is an excelent chance they will produce children who are dwarves. If they can trace back two or three generations of dwarven parents, the chance for their offpsring sharing those traits is virtually guaranteed. (There are instances -- and I know one such family personally -- where one or both parents had mothers or fathers who were of normal height, and as a result some of their nchildren are born with dwarf genes while others are born with normal height.)

There is in the little people community, in fact, a far better example of a sub-culture than among the gay community.

Each gay generation dies out.

They do not produce a new generation of gays.

Even if they give birth to biological children and/or adopt, those children have no more chance of becoming gay than any random selection of human beings. The gays' children will not be gay themselves, and their offspring will be no more likely to be gay, and so on and so on.

Homosexuality does not breed true.

This is quite a straw man you are trying to build, unfortunately it has far too many holes. There are lots of attributes we get from our genetics that do not breed true. Blond hair is one example, hemophilia is another; one we'd seem to see a lot more of (based on the sales of blond hair color and bleach), the other we're glad it doesn't breed true. Race doesn't even breed entirely true, if a black and a white marry their children tend to be black but, once the white gene is in the DNA, a white child may appear born to two black parents.

There are scientists that believe that they are closing in on the genetics of homosexuality. Part of the reason it doesn't seem to breed true is that it appears to be based on multiple genetic markers and not just one.

But the biggest problem is that it just doesn't matter. Why? For the same reason religion is protected by civil rights laws and the constitution. There are some limits, you can't have a religion that practices murder as, then your religion is infringing on the rights of others. It's this reason that the Mormon's were require to stop polyandry, it was determined that prohibiting that practice was required for the good of society.

This now brings up homosexuality. I know that you'll claim that homosexuality causes damage to society, the problem is that no one has yet proved it. In fact, I don't believe any major medical or purely scientific group currently has a problem with homosexuality. These include the American Medical Association,
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Psychoanalytic Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

In addition, by the Supreme Court rejecting the Texas Sodomy law as unconstitutional, it further indicates that there is no societal damage caused by homosexuality. Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a human right. These two decisions, taken together, indicate that denying marriage to persons of the same sex is a denial of basic human rights, and so against the constitution.

Buzz Dixon said:
Marriage is not just for two people who have the warm fuzzies for each other. Marriage is for two familial bloodlines joining together. Marriage is for a community, and past that community a society as a whole to best maintain societal order, justice, and stablility. It's many, many other things beyond that, such as the blending of male and female psyches into one bond.

How does the fact that the couple being same sex change this at all? Does it not join two families. Are there not heterosexual unions where the two families don't have warm fuzzies for each other (the classic story of Romeo & Juliet comes to mind; that it's fictional is irrelevant, it's a classic story because the story is extremely true in society).

I've heard arguments about how gay men have more sexual partners, how the gay (again gay male, doesn't apply to lesbians) community is geared more towards sex than relationships. Yet, isn't much of that societies fault? By your words, "Marriage is for a community, and past that community a society as a whole to best maintain societal order, justice, and stability." Since you are denying these gays marriage, it follows that they have no societal order, justice, or stability.

Buzz Dixon said:
Gay marriage does not contribute as much as it weakens.

Please prove this point.

Buzz Dixon said:
Now, again, you (rhetorical) wanna address certain inequities in inheritance/community property/taxes that can be applied fairly to a great many unmarried couples, gay or straight, absolutely I'll listen to that argument and probably sign off on it if it's well drafted.

I'm glad to hear you feel that way.

Buzz Dixon said:
Likening the unlegality of gay marriage to the ban on whites and blacks marrying in bogus. There have always been class and caste systems in cultures and societies all around the world, and more often than not there are bans and restrictions, either in law or de facto, on intermarriage between classes and castes. They're not right, they're not fair, but they exist. In the years following the American Civil War, the country -- North and South, black and white -- was not ready to tackle the problem of racism/casteism/classism head on.

The difference is that there are virtually no examples (except among a few extrteme totalitarian governments derived from Enlightenment-era intellectual thought) where marriage did not exist within the different classes and castes.

So, based on this argument, there should be no United States of America. The idea of a classless society, without class and caste systems and not even bans or restrictions. How could this be justified in the history of the world? Slavery, obviously by this argument, should still exist. This argument is inane, it would argue that humans cannot progress and that societies cannot advance.

Buzz Dixon said:
Conversely, despite the efforts of folks advocating a pro-gay marriage agenda, there are virtually no examples of gay marriage existing in any culture. What there are are various levels of bonding, formal and informal, between members of the same gender that pro-gay marriage advocates have tried to retro-fit into marriages, but this is futile. If gay marriage existed and was common, it would be well known all around the world even if it was practicied only by a minority.

Actually, this subject is being examined by historians now and debated. The evidence is not as clear cut as what you might think, you might want to check out Wikipedia.

Buzz Dixon said:
I will repeat what I've posted earlier: Gays have all the same rights as every other human being on the planet. They have the right to live their lives unmolested. They have the right to freedom of association. They have the right to voice and advocate contrarian opinions.

But those are the exact same rights the other 97% percent has.

This is just a way of making it seem like you are for equality while justifying bigotry. Let me try changing the subject of the argument: Christians have equal rights in Iran, they're free to attend the same Islamic mosques as anyone else.
 
Upvote 0

invisible trousers

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~
Apr 22, 2005
3,507
402
✟28,218.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Buzz Dixon said:
Gay marriage does not contribute as much as it weakens.

i love it when people say stuff like this.

same-sex marriage is legal in belgium, the netherlands, spain, canada, and massachusetts. there should be mountains of proof that shows how gay marriage destroys society, especially in the netherlands where it's been legal since 2001.

but yet, there isn't any. strange!

I will repeat what I've posted earlier: Gays have all the same rights as every other human being on the planet.

that's a straight up lie. check out this list of 1049 rights and privileges which gay couples don't have. i'm curious to see how you'll spin this.

regarding everything else in this thread...
[bible]luke 18:9-14[/bible]
 
Upvote 0