Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
Compynerd255 wrote:
We should zoom out and see the primary issue of this thread in perspective, independent of the Bible or any other religious text.


I didn't bring the Bible into this "debate", I'm just kicking it back to the curb where it belongs.

Quote:
In your first example, God is orderering something to be done. It clearly is forbidden by God to murder, but he specifically asks it, that's something quite different.


Hypocrisy.

You also missed the slavery and rape part there.

Quote:
In your second quote, it is a prophecy; something that will happen.


A prophecy of pure evil with God's blessing.

Quote:
Again, God doesn't approve slavery, but he does say that if you are slave, to obey your masters.


Wrong.

You can attempt mental gymnastics to avoid it, but the truth is simple - the Bible approves of slavery.

Quote:
You obviously do not understand the Bible


I'm pretty positive I understand it far, far better than you do.
Kllrnohj, Hypocrisy is incorrect.
God wishes to "delete" a part of his creation, but dissalows his creation to do this, except when he asks it specificallly.
God does not have to live up to the rule of murder, since he may kill what he created, but man may not kill it's own kind.

Why may man not kill? Since, they would follow their "fleshly desire", which is not good is God's eyes.

Also, rape was not obvious there, and I don't think it was rape.
God does not allow rape and is condemns it a sin. God is a just God, and is not a hypocrite.

"A prophecy of pure evil with God's blessing."
Erm, the Bible also phropecieses that people will turn against him. This doesn't mean it has his blessing. But as I said, God doesn't only use Christians, and good people is his plan.

No, you are wrong and this is just another proog that you in fact do not understand the thing you are discussing, and are just looking for verses that seem fit to use against me. I think you should read this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Let people here judge for themselves, who knows it better.
Keep the arguments in this topic related to homosexuality or I'll start deleting off topic stuff.
The fact that it's 2013 and we still even have to attempt to argue about the morality of homosexuality is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Luckily, across the country and world, the side of equal rights is winning.
Personally, I don't care about same-sex marriage.

People do whatever they want, and they won't have any biological children, that's all.
pimathbrainiac wrote:
Personally, I don't care about same-sex marriage.

People do whatever they want, and they won't have any biological children, that's all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization

Not trying to be rude here, just thought I'd point this out.
There has also been work on creating sperm cells from the cells of females, though it has yet to work in humans. As well, there has been work to grow certain other pieces of anatomy, though those applications are geared more toward males returning from war with certain injuries >.> (Was I vague enough?) There has not been enough work on the primary goal for experiments in trying to get it to work with genetic females, but that is bound to happen. I am not aware of any successes that might lead to producing ovaries from male cells, but if we manage that, then most same sex couples could have biological children. The only potential trouble I can see in this is that with two males, there is more risk of producing a YY chromosome pair which I do not believe can develop further. With two females, they can only both supply an X chromosome, so they will only produce females-- unless there is some way to change an X chromosome to a Y.

But that is getting a bit off topic, so I will try to veer at back on topic. One view that I find irritating is from those that hold the following beliefs:
1] Homosexuality is a genetic trait that needs to be culled from the human race
2] Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to act all homosexy-like and should try to create a family with a member of the opposite sex.

As ridiculous as this may sound, there are people opposed to same-sex marriage that hold these views. There was even one woman who said that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they shouldn't be allowed to make gay children. Sometimes I think people like that are just jealous because they haven't figured out how sexual reproduction works. But still, even if it is for the wrong reasons, they should support same-sex marriages. I am pretty young, but I do remember a time when homosexuality was much more taboo and could earn a beating from others. I came from a conservative area, true, but it was more than one couple that I learned of that divorced because one partner came out as homosexual. If homosexual people are allowed to marry each other, then the person with the above beliefs can rest assured that they will not be spreading their 'gay genes', but more importantly, there won't be families ruined. In fact, there will be families created and strengthened because as has been pointed out many times: An opposite-sex couple might have a child on accident or unplanned and some may not want to take care of the child. A same-sex couple plans for a child, and wants the child. There is no accident about it, and many children are adopted from a place without parents into a home with parents.

I would also like to point out that homosexuality is common enough in other mammals as well as in humans that it seems likely that there is a good reason for it. I have views on evolution that basically correspond with what science has shown, so that may be offensive to some. With that said, the reason for why homosexuality exists comes down to one reason-- it is advantageous to our species' survival. For the fools that think that survival of a species relies on all members being able to reproduce, I would kindly direct your attention to some animals like bees. They are not mammals, but the majority of bees cannot reproduce. But the bees that do not reproduce (the worker bees) are crucial to the survival of the hive and thus the queen. There are many hypotheses about how homosexuality in humans is advantageous and you are welcome to search for them or create your own. But even if you think that there is no 'natural' reason, then that means that homosexuality has survived in our species because of cultural influences forcing opposite sex couples together to mate. But a neater explanation is that there are a good number of people that are bisexual or some other variant of sexuality and so homosexuality will continue to be prevalent as well as heterosexuality.

But hey, there aren't enough opposite-sex couples to take in and care for orphans and displaced children-- if there were, there wouldn't be any for same-sex couples to look after, right? So if we are caring for abandoned children and children who have already lost a family once and family is important, do we not deserve the same protections that are granted families? I cannot remember off hand, but I believe it is article 26 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man that defines the most basic unit of society as 'the family' and as such, no consenting adults should be denied the right to marry and nobody should be forced to marry if they do not consent.


Err, sorry, I always rant in order to stay on topic .__. Also, I know that much of that is not clear and many thoughts are left unfinished, but I cannot concentrate on this at the moment, sorry :/
Xeda, you raise a lot of good points, though I think you also oversimplify both though evolutionary argument (for example the debate over kin selection - i.e. the gay-uncle hypothesis), and the arguments used by some opponents of gay marriage.

Ultimately though, what it comes down to is individual freedom of conscience. Regardless of individual views within a personal moral framework, you don't have the right to force someone else to live by them. This isn't to say that morality is or should be subjective, but rather to say that even within a framework of objective morality, the right to evaluate moral choices is held only by the individual making them, and they can do so only based on their own conscience.

Furthermore, government should have no say in defining the institution of marriage.
The thing about marriage: It is only a title, really. It means that you vow to stay loyal to a person, but:

A: People cheat

and

B: You can vow to stay loyal to a person without marrying.

Long story short: You can have same-sex couples living in the same house, and acting as if they were married, and, in the eyes of the law, not be married. That is true with heterosexual couples as well. Pretty much all banning same-sex marriage does is making it so that same-sex couples can't file their taxes together a married partners.

The debate is stupid: Regardless of religious belief (You can get married at a courthouse, and not at a place of worship if you so desire).

Just let the people do what they want to do. It does not matter.
pimathbrainiac wrote:
Just let the people do what they want to do. It does not matter.


It may actually matter very much, but that doesn't mean I have the right to get involved. The point is that how much I think it matters (or not) should not be embedded in the legal system.
pimathbrainiac wrote:
The thing about marriage: It is only a title, really. It means that you vow to stay loyal to a person, but:

A: People cheat

and

B: You can vow to stay loyal to a person without marrying.

There actually is a significant difference between marriage and cohabitation, at least in how often people split up: http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/all/1/

And it is actually important that the legal system is involved in our romances through the institution of marriage, because a legal marriage states that the government and the community approves and thus has the obligation to protect your family. They can't break it and others can't infiltrate it unless you allow them to.
Quote:
And it is actually important that the legal system is involved in our romances through the institution of marriage, because a legal marriage states that the government -a-n-d- -t-h-e- -c-o-m-m-u-n-i-t-y- approves and thus has the obligation to protect your family. They can't break it and others can't infiltrate it unless you allow them to.

This is a fiction invented by the French government after their genocide against Catholics at the end of the 18th century as a method of further societal control against religious people.

Civil marriage laws have about as ugly a history as gun control and forced resettlement when it comes to tools of oppression and societal control.

Your community and your government (at every level but the most local) have very little to do with one another.
elfprince13 wrote:
Quote:
And it is actually important that the legal system is involved in our romances through the institution of marriage, because a legal marriage states that the government -a-n-d- -t-h-e- -c-o-m-m-u-n-i-t-y- approves and thus has the obligation to protect your family. They can't break it and others can't infiltrate it unless you allow them to.

This is a fiction invented by the French government after their genocide against Catholics at the end of the 18th century as a method of further societal control against religious people.

Civil marriage laws have about as ugly a history as gun control and forced resettlement when it comes to tools of oppression and societal control.

Your community and your government (at every level but the most local) have very little to do with one another.


There are quite a few gay spouses without legal citizenship who would disagree with you. They can't voice their disagreement because they've already been deported by a government that did not recognize their marriage.
OK, maybe not the community, but definitely the government, or the church that officiates your marriage. For instance, the Fifth Amendment (that says you can't testify against yourself) has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that your spouse doesn't have to testify against you either. The community can still hate you or be jealous of you all they want, and when I said "the community", I was referring to the fact that they still have to honor the marriage even if they don't want to.
Compynerd255 wrote:
OK, maybe not the community, but definitely the government, or the church that officiates your marriage. For instance, the Fifth Amendment (that says you can't testify against yourself) has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that your spouse doesn't have to testify against you either. The community can still hate you or be jealous of you all they want, and when I said "the community", I was referring to the fact that they still have to honor the marriage even if they don't want to.


Precisely. In other words, part of the government needs to recognize your marriage so that the rest of the government is forced to respect your rights as a couple in all other legal matters(hospital visitation, death benefits, immigration status, 5th amendment protections, etc.).
DShiznit wrote:
There are quite a few gay spouses without legal citizenship who would disagree with you. They can't voice their disagreement because they've already been deported by a government that did not recognize their marriage.

Which is to say: civil marriage laws have been used as tools of oppression to drive them out of their home. Which is to say, my point exactly.

DShiznit wrote:
Precisely. In other words, part of the government needs to recognize your marriage so that the rest of the government is forced to respect your rights as a couple in all other legal matters(hospital visitation, death benefits, immigration status, 5th amendment protections, etc.).

You really oughtn't have rights as a couple at all, any more than a corporation should have rights as a corporation. But neither should you lose any of your individual rights just because you participate in a joint enterprise of one sort or another.
Cross-posting from the Ender's Game Anticipation thread, to redirect any political conversation, and to serve as a hook for anyone who might be interested in LGBT rights and not otherwise see the relevant discussion from that thread.

elfprince13 wrote:
Also, the fan community over at Philotic Web have organized a campaign as a sort of "political offset" to voice our consternation over Orson Scott Card's stance on LGBT rights. While we love his work, and even recognize that he's definitely not a "homophobe" or "gay-hater" or any of the other nasty words that get thrown around in debates over this issue, we do oppose his stances on public policy with regards to LGBT rights. If you're in the same boat, and concerned about the idea that your money might be indirectly routed to the National Organization for Marriage (or similar activist organizations) by way of your ticket (or book) purchases, you might consider participating in this campaign, rather than simply participating in a boycott as others (i.e. Geeks OUT) are calling for.
http://www.razoo.com/team/Endersgamefans4equality

To forestall this thread devolving in policy debate, please direct any comments on that score (as opposed to discussion of the campaign itself or the film) to our existing Same-Sex Marriage topic. I'll cross-reference this post there as a starting point.
So when you buy the book or a ticket to the movie, you make an equal donation to this thing and then that money goes to groups that fight the anti-gay groups that book or movie ticket sale would support? Neat.
DShiznit wrote:
So when you buy the book or a ticket to the movie, you make an equal donation to this thing and then that money goes to groups that fight the anti-gay groups that book or movie ticket sale would support? Neat.


Exactly.
I don't support same-sex marrige on a morale level, as I am Christain, but I beleive state and church should be seperate, and since America is free, it should be legal.

Although I'm christian, there are times when I fell gay, but overal I would rather be married to a girl, so I say I'm heterosexual. I also have alot to say about "LGBT" but I'll make another topic about that.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 20 of 22
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement