Same Sex Marriage, please cast your vote.

[KCKID]

what's a Christian?

And I don't want Biblical terms, which are subject to inerpretation, I want secular terms.

Then find yourself a secular forum.

In all fairness he should be given an answer. Actually, the secular answer is precisely the same as the Christian answer. A Christian is a believer in, and a follower of, Jesus Christ.

The next question might be, however ...what does believing in, and being a follower of, Jesus Christ entail?

A nonChristian visitor to this forum would be hard pressed to determine the answer to that question when they read the argumentative posts of professed Christians. Maybe there is no definitive answer since believing in, and following, Jesus Christ is so personal a matter to the individual ...? That being the case it might be better for all simply to accept the professed Christianity of others, even of those we might disagree with.

I do realize that this would take the fun away from those of us that simply like to argue ...

 

[Chazemataz]

Then find yourself a secular forum.

She said she thought Christians were on here, and acted like anyone who isn't a literalist is not a Christian.
Anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God is a Christian. I said that because I didn't want somebody saying that a Christian is someone who is a member of the Reformed Second Baptist Church of South-Eastern Texas or somethin and then giving loads of scripture to say why their beliefs are the only True Way and everyone else's is wrong.

 

[Supernaut]

She said she thought Christians were on here, and acted like anyone who isn't a literalist is not a Christian.
Anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God is a Christian. I said that because I didn't want somebody saying that a Christian is someone who is a member of the Reformed Second Baptist Church of South-Eastern Texas or somethin and then giving loads of scripture to say why their beliefs are the only True Way and everyone else's is wrong.

Ahhh...got it.

 

[Supernaut]

In all fairness he should be given an answer. Actually, the secular answer is precisely the same as the Christian answer. A Christian is a believer in, and a follower of, Jesus Christ.

The next question might be, however ...what does believing in, and being a follower of, Jesus Christ entail?

A nonChristian visitor to this forum would be hard pressed to determine the answer to that question when they read the argumentative posts of professed Christians. Maybe there is no definitive answer since believing in, and following, Jesus Christ is so personal a matter to the individual ...? That being the case it might be better for all simply to accept the professed Christianity of others, even of those we might disagree with.

I do realize that this would take the fun away from those of us that simply like to argue ...

True true....but yes, you took ALL of the fun away with this one!

 

[KCKID]

True true....but yes, you took ALL of the fun away with this one!

Yes, I know I did. Sorry.

However, I had my fingers crossed behind my back when I said it so it isn't exactly binding.

 

[sidhe]

But we should.

Tell me why we shouldn't?

Because, JMV, if we never redefine things, nothing ever changes.

If Einstein and his fellow physicists in the early 20th century hadn't said "Newton was wrong about his principles being universal" and redefined physics, nothing would have happened. If Copernicus hadn't redefined the order of the planets, Darwin hadn't redefined most of the biological sciences, Jefferson hadn't redefined freedom, Emperor Ch'in hadn't redefined his country's borders, Alexander the Great hadn't redefined warfare, Julius Caesar hadn't redefined "republic"...etc.

Or, let me make this hit home for you: If St. Paul hadn't argued to redefine "Christian" as something separate from Judaism, and allow for conversions from gentile to Christian without stopping at "Jew" in between, would your religion have spread as much?

For good or ill, not changing anything leads to stagnation, and stagnation removes all forward movement.

It was a repressive law that didn't make sense as people of opposite races can just as easily be attracted to one another. It was a racist law barring a natural joining and a natural coupling.

So it was stupid.

Again, if something occurs in nature, it's natural. People of the same gender can be easily attracted to one another. Barring same-sex marriage is sexist.

Your argument. It is like a house built of cards. You start with your triple fallacy of "tradition", "popularity", and "nature", and then attempt to build upon it with large words to conceal that your argument is based on illogical standards that require hypocrisy to defend.

Traditionally marriage does not require that people be of the same race or religion...

Wow. How can you be so totally wrong? In the Eastern Orthodox church, marrying outside the church results in being denied communion until your husband/wife converts. While Jews and Catholics both allow for extra-religious marriages, they both come with the contingency that the children are raised within the faith. Mixed-race marriages were banned many places for many years. Traditionally, mixed marriages of race or religion may not have been banned outright, but they were HIGHLY discouraged.

But it CERTAINLY, INTERNATIONALLY AND UNIVERSALLY, requires it to be of the opposite gender.

Except for those places where it doesn't...which means that it is neither certainly, internationally, or universally required to be opposite gender.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

These comparisons are entirely off-topic.

Jews and catholics are citizens and humans who want the same right as other people, so are women, to cast a vote or to 'graduate.'

Homosexuals have those rights -- we simply have prevented them from entering an institution that is BY DEFINITION, BY DEFINITION, BY DEFINITION against what they PRACTICE.

This would be more like saying "Next thing you know, women will be allowed to call themselves men on applications, and Jews and Catholics will be able to insist that they are Muslims in order to go on the Hajj to Mecca."

"Jews and catholics are citizens and humans who want the same right as other people"

...are you saying that gay people aren't citizens or don't want equal rights

Wanting marriage for the sake of the legal rights that the state has to offer isn't special rights. For the record.

Also for the record, here's a look at the gay agenda:

8AM - Wake up.
9AM - Probably class.
10AM - More class.
11AM - Lunch.
12PM - More class.
1PM - Even more class.
2PM - Work.
8PM - Go home.
8:30PM - Dinner.
9PM - Sleep...sometimes.

Wait, that's not the gay agenda! That's a typically college students day. Well then what is my gay agenda. Oh yeah! I have a girlfriend. I want to be able to see her when she's in the hospital without having to worry about legal issues because I'm not married too her. And if that girlfriend ever has a child that I am close to and treat like he was my own, I would not want to lose that child forever if anything should happen to said girlfriend just because we're not "married".

 

[Penumbra]

Please cast your vote, I'm concerned "YES" seems to be in front.

Poll Popup | Herald Sun



thanks so much
God bless!

Well I'm not Australian, and this poll seems hardly important, but for whatever it's worth, I voted yes.

-Lyn

 

[Jase]

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the argument, but if marriage is such a sacred, Christian institution, whereby gay marriage threatens the very foundation of said institution, why do 50% of Christians in the United States divorce? Can such an institution really be that sacred when it is so casually dissolved by the very people professing its sacredness?

 

[Nimrauko]

It's not equal rights.

It's taking a traditional institution that has existed unchanged in most Western culture (Vikings being the exception) for over a millenia.

If you want equal rights, make a contract with one another or convince insurance companies to recognize you in some status -- do not change my traditional institution and my heritage.

(One could also point out that in the majority of all societies, including our precious Eastern hemisphere, homosexual marriage has never existed and never will).

LMAO! Your traditional institution is made a mockery by your own kind. You marry people you just meet, and divorce and cheat on your spouse. So you guys dont have a very good track record with marriage. And FYI: Christianity didnt invent it. Its always been around thus making it a pagan tradition which is a no no. Darn near Idolatrous.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the argument, but if marriage is such a sacred, Christian institution, whereby gay marriage threatens the very foundation of said institution, why do 50% of Christians in the United States divorce?

In a culture saturated with none marriage sexual unions, promiscuity as an icon, and sexual permissiveness championed in every form of media, how is it that 50% of Christians get marriage 100% right?

That seems almost miraculous. Look at how many people overall (what 75, 80% or higher?) do not even get married before setting up lives together?

Can such an institution really be that sacred when it is so casually dissolved by the very people professing its sacredness?

Prove how you know they are "casually dissolved?" That's a powerful prophetic utterance.

 

[Everlasting33]

These comparisons are entirely off-topic.

Jews and catholics are citizens and humans who want the same right as other people, so are women, to cast a vote or to 'graduate.'

Homosexuals have those rights -- we simply have prevented them from entering an institution that is BY DEFINITION, BY DEFINITION, BY DEFINITION against what they PRACTICE.

This would be more like saying "Next thing you know, women will be allowed to call themselves men on applications, and Jews and Catholics will be able to insist that they are Muslims in order to go on the Hajj to Mecca."

Exactly. Reps!

 

[ke1985]

LMAO! Your traditional institution is made a mockery by your own kind. You marry people you just meet, and divorce and cheat on your spouse. So you guys dont have a very good track record with marriage. And FYI: Christianity didnt invent it. Its always been around thus making it a pagan tradition which is a no no. Darn near Idolatrous.

Illogical argument. That's like saying that having a law against murder is wrong because people still murder and do gruesome things.

 

[Nimrauko]

Illogical argument. That's like saying that having a law against murder is wrong because people still murder and do gruesome things.

worst argument ever.

 

[ke1985]

worst argument ever.

Ironic since I was poking fun at your argument!

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7377950-post52129084/#post52129084
Don't go down the unnatural route. A, you'll lose and B, it's pointless. The definition of marriage is currently largely one man and one woman, but it's hardly universal. It's changed across time and culture as well. The treatment of women is far more universal - patriarchal societies are the norm with very few exceptions. But there hasn't been any kind of indication of a return to trational thinking on that front. Some are slower to adopt it than other, but it is happening, across the world.
No, you do not choose "unnatural" route.

Every time I debate this my posts get "reported" because I state my opinion in fullness and it is 100% evolutionarily accurate (I believe in evolution -- used to be an atheist, and even then, I felt homosexuality was unnatural).

It is occurs in animals, there for it occurs in nature, therefore it is not unnatural.

Evolution does not require all animals to reproduce. In fact, having a single dominate breeding animal or breeding pair is very very common. Thus it does not matter if all members of the species are sexually active or not, nor does it matter if they have heterosexual or homosexual inclinations. Male homosexuality has been linked to female fertility, so may be selected for on that basis. Keeping a minority of animals are non breeders, but still about to offer family support may have an evolutionary benefit to social species. In short, there is no evolutionary reason why a small population of homosexuals, and the fact that this is the case for many animals demonstrates it.

Furthermore, one could argue that the treatment of women was even more universal years ago.

Homosexuality has been and always will be treated as abnormal.

Abnormal is in not common, but not always abnormal as in wrong. Besides, was humanity wrong to change it’s opinions of women and their position in society over the last couple of hundred years?

Go talk to people who are from a nation that is not part of the intellectual trend of the West and who are atheist.

By and large, the Chinese (who are majority atheist) do not believe in the least in homosexuality and had even cracked down on it before the Olympics.

The Chinese clamp down on a lot of things, doesn’t mean its right. I’m less familiar with the Chinese than I am with the Japanese. Over there, a similar cultural change is happening. Homosexuality (and women’s rights) are not well accepted amongst the older population, but support is growing amongst the younger generations. Look into shonen-ai and shojou-ai, for example. (You could also look into yaoi and yuri, but as these are pornographic, you may not want to!)

Why?

Because humans are meant to procreate through heterosexual sex and are given an innate desire to mate with people of the opposite sex, aren't we?

We might be “meant to” as in this is the natural way to do it, but we don’t always – see invitro fertilization. And no, not everyone has the innate desire to mate with people of the opposite sex, that’s the point. Some people have an innate desire to mate with those of the same gender, some have the desire to mate with either.

Since it is necessary for the human species to procreate, the desire to mate with the opposite gender is the most fundamental and natural, and to not have this makes one have a malfunction.

So? Even if this is true, there are plenty of malfunctioning humans. We don’t treat the infertile as different (even though there is definitely something malfunctioning there).

Do not even go there with "You will lose."

The biggest mockery of the debate is the fact that you think you've already won.

Haughtiness cannot save you from logic.

Took me one line to show it wasn’t unnatural. You lost. Whether something is natural or not doesn’t make it right or wrong.

 

[Psudopod]

Illogical argument. That's like saying that having a law against murder is wrong because people still murder and do gruesome things.

One, the poster wasn’t talking about legislation.
Two, it is sensible to have laws against murder because murder causes demonstrable harm to society.
Three, homosexuality isn’t illegal for the most part (repressive, fundamentalist regimes aside).

 

[trunks2k]

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the argument, but if marriage is such a sacred, Christian institution, whereby gay marriage threatens the very foundation of said institution, why do 50% of Christians in the United States divorce? Can such an institution really be that sacred when it is so casually dissolved by the very people professing its sacredness?

To be fair, the statistic is that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. This does not mean that you have a 50/50 chance of getting divorced, or that 50% of people who get married will get divorced. The 50% statistic is skewed by people people who have been divorced multiple times. IIRC, the statistic of the possibility that a couple that is getting married for the first time will end up divorcing is significantly lower than 50%.

 

[ke1985]

[/color]

One, the poster wasn’t talking about legislation.
Two, it is sensible to have laws against murder because murder causes demonstrable harm to society.
Three, homosexuality isn’t illegal for the most part (repressive, fundamentalist regimes aside).

I was making an analogy and not trying to compare the two in an accurate way.

 

[LightHorseman]

Exactly. Reps!

So, do you support discrimination against people based on their gender in any other matter?