The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[EnemyPartyII]

Wonder if valuecard and his 215 posts in his 2 years of membership ever came back to justify his POV?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

History proves otherwise.

Really? Name 3 examples of slippery slope arguments being accurate representations of reality?

 

[quatona]

History proves otherwise.

Ok. Once we allow people to believe in a god they will believe in all sorts of superstitions and on top kill all infidels.
Personally, I think this statement is a logical (slippery slope) fallacy, but since history proves slippery slope fallacies to be logical I guess it must be correct.

 

[quatona]

Really? Name 3 examples of slippery slope arguments being accurate representations of reality?

Even if there were slippery slope predictions that came true (and actually I am convinced there are plenty of them), they would still be logical fallacies.

 

[Verv]

Really? Name 3 examples of slippery slope arguments being accurate representations of reality?

(1) The argument against the invasion of Carthage by Rome.
(2) The argument for intervening against China in the 1950s
(3) The argument against not appeasing the Nazis

In these three circumstances, the idea that Carthage shouldn't have been invaded, that China should have experienced more adverse action and that the Nazis should have been stopped were causes where people used the 'slippery slope' idea.

It was rather amazing because the slippery slope idea as applied to Carthage was abstract and philosophical and concerned with the idea that if Rome invaded Carthage and inherited that many riches they would eventually become decadent and corrupt...

Which si what happened.

 

[valuecard]

Wonder if valuecard and his 215 posts in his 2 years of membership ever came back to justify his POV?

Im still reading this thread and following along. I piped in a few pages back if you care to check. In some ways, I feel like "whats the point", seeing how how easily so many people on here justify obvious immorality under the guise of rationality.

 

[nolongerhome]

Im still reading this thread and following along. I piped in a few pages back if you care to check. In some ways, I feel like "whats the point", seeing how how easily so many people on here justify obvious immorality under the guise of rationality.

You say we "justify obvious immorality", but repeatedly people have engaged your arguments and you have basically not attempted to engage with them in return.

You ask questions, you get answers, and instead of trying to respond to what people are saying in response to your original claims, you ask new questions or, as it now seems, simply can't be bothered trying to continue a dialogue. For someone that claimed they were trying to bring logic into this discussion that is really quite intellectually lazy.

I would be interested to hear your answers to it.

If you are arguing that your religious beliefs should be imposed on the whole of society, believers or otherwise, which is what you are doing, you are going to have to do a bit better than what you have managed to do so far in this thread.

 

[quatona]

Im still reading this thread and following along. I piped in a few pages back if you care to check. In some ways, I feel like "whats the point", seeing how how easily so many people on here justify obvious immorality under the guise of rationality.

Am I correct in understanding that your argument comes down to "it´s obvious that I am right"?

 

[katholikos]

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 - Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 - The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 - Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

source: LINK

 

[KCKID]

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 - Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 - The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 - Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

source: LINK

How condescending. And bolded no less.

I trust the author has attained Christian perfection?

 

[katholikos]

How condescending.......

From your perspective, perhaps.
But in fact, it is true and correct.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

How condescending. And bolded no less.

I trust the author has attained Christian perfection?

Christian perfection presumably is Jesus Christ. What has been posted looks in accordance with scripture.

 

[Psudopod]

Christian perfection presumably is Jesus Christ. What has been posted looks in accordance with scripture.

And where did Jesus condemn same sex relationships and commit homosexuals to celibacy?

 

[KCKID]

And where did Jesus condemn same sex relationships and commit homosexuals to celibacy?

Don't hold your breath waiting for a coherent answer. I've asked that same question of bms several times on a different thread.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod and KCKID,

Christian perfection presumably is Jesus Christ. What has been posted looks in accordance with scripture.

And where did Jesus condemn same sex relationships and commit homosexuals to celibacy?

Where didn’t He?
If you cant see the evidence why ask me for it, its in the Bible and anyone with an open mind can see it.

 

[CoderHead]

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

So, basically, you're supposed to treat homosexuals with Christ's love and not condemn them for their sexual orientation, welcoming them into your flock and not trying to "deprogram" them? That sounds good as a start! Now, when can we start talking about equal rights?

 

[Psudopod]

Where didn’t He?
If you cant see the evidence why ask me for it, its in the Bible and anyone with an open mind can see it.

I don't have a Bible to hand. Point me out some.

 

[CoderHead]

Where didn’t He?
If you cant see the evidence why ask me for it, its in the Bible and anyone with an open mind can see it.

Paul is not Jesus (and it's very clear from his misogyny and advocacy of slavery). Leviticus is the "old law" that was rendered moot by Christ's sacrifice (otherwise, you'd still be stoning disrespectful children to death). The question stands:

Where did Jesus ever condemn same-sex relationships?

 

[KCKID]

To Psudopod and KCKID,

Christian perfection presumably is Jesus Christ. What has been posted looks in accordance with scripture.

Where didn’t He?
If you cant see the evidence why ask me for it, its in the Bible and anyone with an open mind can see it.

Translation: You're right ...Jesus didn't say a word against or even about same-sex relationships but don't you see that I have to relentlessly dig in my heels since I've painted myself into a corner?

 

[Sojourner1]

People saw homosexuality as a sex act, not as people of the same sex being actually attracted to one another.

The word homosexual wasn't coined until the 18th century, and was thought to be a mental illness until 1973.

However, you then ask me to show you a place where people 2000 years prior understand and acknowledge the existence of homosexuality, a word not yet coined, nor even a concept understood?

That follows exactly the same logic of saying, "Show me a place where there is someone riding a bike" since bikes, or even the concept of such a thing, existed.

Women were seen as property when the bible was written. Women were forbidden to speak in the temple, but told to remain quiet and ask their husbands when they got home.

Do you live by that still, too, with the thinking of men from 2000 years ago?

Or do you pick and choose what isn't there (no one eating spaghetti, so spaghetti is EVIL, women should never speak in church, because Paul (God) says so), or do you simply enjoy tying burdens on the back, not only of gay christians, but gays that don't even follow your religion, nor, understandably, would want anything to do with it, and make your bible a law book that burdens others?

In the meantime, sit back, break the laws of Leviticus all you want, enjoy heterosexual marriage privileges that you refuse to extend to gay couples, and prepare for Judgement Day, when you are held by the standard that you judge others.

There are verses in the Old Testament and in the New Testament that state that homosexual sex is wrong and the God does not condone it. Let's not get into a debate about following the laws of Leviticus because this is something that was repeated in the New Testament (that homosexual sex is a sin). Nine of the Ten Commandments were repeated again in the New Testament making those commandments still in effect. All of the other laws are no longer in effect because we are under the law of grace.

Why would God condone a homosexual relationship based on "love" when that relationship includes sex? Saying that the relationship is justified in the eyes of God because they are in love doesn't suddenly make the homosexual sex justified. I'm just trying to understand the logic of this line of thought. It really doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is a new institution and therefore that is the reason it was never mentioned in the Bible. Homosexuality has always existed, which is evidenced by the fact the God addresses the issue way back in Leviticus. There would be no reason for Scripture to ever address same-sex marriage because the relationship wasn't condoned in the first place, irregardless of whether or not they "loved" each other.

What do you care what non-Christians do amongst themselves?

By the way, where are spaghetti eating and bicycle riding discussed in the Bible? Seems to me that by your rubric, both are sinful.

This is a fun game.

I don't actually care what non-Christians do amongst themselves. I don't care if people have homosexual relationships...I really don't. What I care about is when people claim that homosexual relationships are condoned by God. People can do whatever they want with their lives, that is their right. If they aren't saved I think they should live their life however they want. But if they are saved they don't have that same freedom. I've grown tired of the spaghetti and biking riding analogies because they mean nothing and are irrelevant to the discussion.