Prop 8: the silver lining

[Wyzaard]

Wow an article that says nothing that I do not already know and in no way demonstrates how anything I have said has been incorrect. Rather it repeats the same errors made by those arguing in this thread.

You have not shown that they are errors, so...

They are deformations because they are improper formations. Distortions of how the structure should develop as.

"Should" according to...? I might agree with the 'deformation' label when it concerns severe disabilities, but I see no justification in that sense for depriving the disabled of civil rights, much less see how someone being gay is a disability in the first place. "Improper", "distortions"... these are terms whose authority do not recognize; until you show that they possess any justificatory meaning, they're simply prejudicial... and nothing more.

 

[Wyzaard]

This has so much comment that is completely contrary to Biblical teachings and Christian values that I personally think it has no place here.

That's nice... now would you excuse us, please? We're trying to have a discussion here.

 

[Atlantians]

Accidental double post.

 

[Atlantians]

You have not shown that they are errors, so...

Indeed I have. Read all my posts in this thread before making such assertions.

"Should" according to...? I might agree with the 'deformation' label when it concerns severe disabilities, but I see no justification in that sense for depriving the disabled of civil rights, much less see how someone being gay is a disability in the first place.

"Improper", "distortions"... these are terms whose authority do not recognize; until you show that they possess any justificatory meaning, they're simply prejudicial... and nothing more.

So a guy who has unformed ovaries in him... is not deformed?
So a girl who has partially formed testes... is not deformed?

You realize I was talking about androgyny not homosexuality... right?

Jesus said that His Followers would be recognized by their love.

Love is a network of motives and of actions not touchy-feely mushiness.

It is loving to fight against sin.
Love hates what is evil and clings to what is good.

Should I claim that many Fundamentalist Christians fail and this, and should learn to be loving to others so that they can become true Followers of Jesus, the Christ?

Love hates what is evil and clings to what is good.
Love always protects.

 

[cantata]

Love hates...

Mmmm, I love a good oxymoron on a Sunday night.

 

[Atlantians]

Mmmm, I love a good oxymoron on a Sunday night.

So does a loving person hate what was done to the Jews in WWII?

Love is a network of actions and intentions, not a particular emotion that is in contrast with another emotion.

Uh, seriously? You are going with how someone looks, and not their Chromosomes?

Yes actually. Chromosomes are genetic packets. Sometimes they copy wrong.

How the information expresses itself is important. And if expressed as a male, they are a male.

So, if a male gets a sex change operation, and looks female, does that make them female? Since, as you said, it's all about looks.

No because they were initially male.
They developed as a male. They then changed them self.

What about poor David Reimer, who lost his penis in a tragic circumcision accident, and was raised as a female until puberty? Was he male or female?

Male.

Do some catch up reading. Its what we call PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times). Children do fine in same-gender headed families.

Prove it rather than asserting it.
Make an argument. Make a case.

Of course, we know that God believes in the "one man and one woman" theory, because He moved Laban to give Jacob Leah to wife and refuse him Rachel, since Jacob already had one wife. And Jacob fathered six sons on Leah. Then there was a famine in the land, and Jacob's six sons went down to Egypt to trade for grain, but they were turned away, for Egypt had not prepared for the famine either, and had no grain to trade. And they came back to their father, and they all died in the famine. No survivors of Judah, no King David, no Jesus descended from his line. Just an incident in the legends of Palestine, a small footnote about a family that died off. Sad -- almost as sad as legalism enforced by the tyranny of the majority.

"God uses evil for good".

The polygamy was not good. It is a distortion of marriage.

 

[cantata]

So does a loving person hate what was done to the Jews in WWII?

Love is a network of actions and intentions, not a particular emotion that is in contrast with another emotion.

I guess it really (here comes the shocker) depends on how you define "love", doesn't it?

Christians don't have the monopoly on the word, believe it or not.

Besides - a loving person may well hate what was done to Jews in WWII, but love itself doesn't hate anything.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Yes actually. Chromosomes are genetic packets. Sometimes they copy wrong.

How the information expresses itself is important. And if expressed as a male, they are a male.

No because they were initially male.
They developed as a male. They then changed them self.

Male.

What logic is this? You claim that a human, with internal testes, is female, but not a male-to-female transexual, even though she doesn't have any testes? And then turn around and claim that a male baby, raised as a girl until puberty, is male.

If looking like a gender is enough to "count" as that gender for you (no matter what sexual organs they carry) then I don't see how you can logically say that a sex-changed person is not the gender they appear. I almost believe you are just categorizing things without logically thinking about them.

Gender is not as simple as you claim, and all you seem to have done is to disregard all evidence provided to the contrary, such as the existence of intersexed people.

 

[Atlantians]

I guess it really (here comes the shocker) depends on how you define "love", doesn't it?

I use the Biblical definition. Love isn't a touchy-feely emotion.
It is generally a genuine concern for something expressed in actions that place anther's needs above one's own.

Christians don't have the monopoly on the word, believe it or not.

The world has a monopoly on Christians.

Besides - a loving person may well hate what was done to Jews in WWII, but love itself doesn't hate anything.

1 Corinthians 13. Love hates what is evil.

You claim that a human, with internal testes, is female,

They also have a uterus and female systems. Nonworking male parts and working/partly-working female parts. Thus a female with a disformation causing the growth of nonfunctional male parts.

but not a male-to-female transexual, even though she doesn't have any testes?

Even though he doesn't have any testes.
They were removed through surgery. An unnatural medical procedure.

And then turn around and claim that a male baby, raised as a girl until puberty, is male.

Because they were a male baby mutilated and then raised in an unnatural manner with procedures to try and change his body to appear female.

If looking like a gender is enough to "count" as that gender for you (no matter what sexual organs they carry) then I don't see how you can logically say that a sex-changed person is not the gender they appear.

It is one of several determining factors. You can't use one measuring rod that I use in conjunction with several others as if it were the only one and then attack it alone. That is a straw man.

Gender is not as simple as you claim, and all you seem to have done is to disregard all evidence provided to the contrary, such as the existence of intersexed people.

I have disregarded nothing. Don't accuse me of disregarding things that I have dealt with thoroughly simply because you disagree with my analysis.

I am really getting weary of being told: "Atlantians you don't know history" Atlantians "You are an idiot" "Atlantians you disregarded all my evidence" "Atlantians you are a bigot", ect. When what the accuser really means is: "I disagree with you Atlantians".

Just say what you actually mean rather than throwing an ad hominem to hide your inability to make an argument.

Say you disagree and then please make a positive argument for your position rather than this drivel.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

When gay marriage finally gets through everywhere (which it will!), I wonder if there will still be as many threads on the issue, or will it eventually become a social no-no to argue against, much like the way it is a social no-no to say interracial marriages shouldn't happen?

History proves that same-gender marriage is never go to be approved of by the majority populace. As in the past, their is a class of people that feel their sexual tastes have to be celebrated by all.

This to shall pass.

Nature will return order back to its place.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

At the risk of inviting controversy, what would happen if there was such a thing as a "gay" gene discovered, and couples could choose to genetically modify a fetus to exclude homosexuality?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

At the risk of inviting controversy, what would happen if there was such a thing as a "gay" gene discovered, and couples could choose to genetically modify a fetus to exclude homosexuality?

well by that time we will have also made everyone pure white and blue eyeed by getting rid of those pesky genes and we will go back into more direct genetic breeding. GATTACA....!!!

Seriously though, if we get that far then sex doesnt really matter when you could just go to a baby clinic, insert your and your partners DNA or select from prime stock and make your baby to order.

Why ill have mine with mutant powers please.


Or in reality we can look at now.

 

[cantata]

Why ill have mine with mutant powers please.

Laser eyes kthxbai.

 

[brightmorningstar]

When gay marriage finally gets through everywhere (which it will!), I wonder if there will still be as many threads on the issue, or will it eventually become a social no-no to argue against, much like the way it is a social no-no to say interracial marriages shouldn't happen?

same sex unions wont get through everywhere, already with California we have seen they wont. I know gay lobbyists are determined to get gay thinking in everywhere and in everything but that just shows us why the account of Sodom is being repeated as Polycarp_fan points out, its a bigger issue than people like to admit and they said to Lot get out of our way or we will treat you worse.

Gay lobbyists are too gay to reason with... Jesus needs to break in.

 

[brightmorningstar]

At the risk of inviting controversy, what would happen if there was such a thing as a "gay" gene discovered, and couples could choose to genetically modify a fetus to exclude homosexuality?

Its a very good question. The existance of a gay gene is something gay lobbyists are concerned with, for Christians it makes no difference as genes have already been identified which cause disease and God's wish is for healing.
The question would then be is the gay gene to be treated like the disease? I would say from a medical point of view yes as its dysfunctional, from a Godly point of view yes as well, this is why gay lobbying is trying to change worldviews to gay thinking. This is the real disease, it isolates and separates people, God loves all people not for what sex they want but for who He created to be.

 

[QuakerOats]

I honestly don't see how being gay is dysfunctional. As for it being a disease, well, it isn't harmful, scientifically speaking, so I don't think it can reasonably be classified as a disease either.

 

[Atlantians]

I honestly don't see how being gay is dysfunctional. As for it being a disease, well, it isn't harmful, scientifically speaking, so I don't think it can reasonably be classified as a disease either.

If it is caused by a physiological reason... then it can be classified as a birth defect or a mental disorder like Downe's Syndrome or any other one of that nature.

However, if it is a "choice" (loosely defined) then it would be classified as a behavioural variance like promiscuity or the like.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To QuakerOats,

I honestly don't see how being gay is dysfunctional. As for it being a disease, well, it isn't harmful, scientifically speaking, so I don't think it can reasonably be classified as a disease either.

I dont think there is a consensus of scientific opinion yet that one can be gay. I think this is more about what gay thinking has convinced itself.
Dysfunction and function arent classififcations of good or harm but of function, I think this is another aspect where gay thinking sees everything bin terms of sexual attraction. and orientation; in other words a product of dysfunctional thinking.
Similalry I find it difficult to understand how people fail to see how same sex union is dysfunctional as the function of the sexual organs is opposite sex and not same sex.

 

[SiderealExalt]

same sex unions wont get through everywhere, already with California we have seen they wont. I know gay lobbyists are determined to get gay thinking in everywhere and in everything but that just shows us why the account of Sodom is being repeated as Polycarp_fan points out, its a bigger issue than people like to admit and they said to Lot get out of our way or we will treat you worse.

Gay lobbyists are too gay to reason with... Jesus needs to break in.

I think it's the opposite really. I think it's just a matter of time until gay marriage is a reality nationally in this country.

I saw this comic in the LA Times this morning.

 

[corvus_corax]

Its a very good question. The existance of a gay gene is something gay lobbyists are concerned with, for Christians it makes no difference as genes have already been identified which cause disease and God's wish is for healing.

Oddly, there is no objective empirical repeatable evidence for your deity curing ANY disease

The question would then be is the gay gene to be treated like the disease? I would say from a medical point of view yes as its dysfunctional, from a Godly point of view yes as well,

I'll note that you have now alluded twice (directly) to homosexuality as a disease.

If it is caused by a physiological reason... then it can be classified as a birth defect or a mental disorder like Downe's Syndrome or any other one of that nature.

You can't equate Downe's syndrome with a "disorder" you want to label a "sin", unless you want to actually equate Downe's with homosexuality (in the same way, across the board)
Do you want to equate them across the board?
No?
Then DROP that argument like a hot rock

Similalry I find it difficult to understand how people fail to see how same sex union is dysfunctional as the function of the sexual organs is opposite sex and not same sex.

I've seen this argument before, and it's stupid.

You are NOT presenting an argument against same-sex marriage.
You are presenting an argument against same-sex SEX.
Re-read your own statement and admit it.

Which is fine, your beliefs are your beliefs.
But please get your argument straight and realize what you are actually arguing against.

You cannot argue against functionallity of sexual organs and be honest across the board. What about a man who has been physically castrated due to accident? His sexual organs are now non-existent (therefore dyfunctional).
According to your argument, he should not allowed to be married.
Or how about a man who's been "tied off"? His penis no longer functions in regard to passing sperm to the woman, therefore he has CHOSEN to be dysfunctional according to your statement, and therefore should NOT allowed to get married.

Sorry, but that's exactly your argument. I now expect you to petition a common vote to prevent such men from getting married and actually be consistent and honest in your POV.