For someone who bitched about a personal attack, you sure didn’t mind dropping down to said level.

Ragman, I don’t know you at all,

No, you don’t.

but I was probably using arcnet and uunet before you were born. I know what you meant when you called me a troll.

No, you weren’t. 

A person that actively goes about trolling for flames is admirable? Wow, I guess my values really are passe.

Would you tell a kid there is no Santa Claus, just to show how smart you are?

Well, yes...if said kid was actually an adult who grew to adulthood still believing in Santa Claus and trying to impose the morality and “truths” of Santa stories on the rest of the population.

Ragman, the only way I could be dropping down to your level is if, somehow, you are upset that I inferred that you are probably younger (not childlike) than you actually are. It’s hard to imagine just how you took that as an insult. Most adults prefer to appear to be younger than they are. Whereas your statement questions my motivations and character. But then, your ability to reason I guess is in some question, and this rather proves the point. There, now I’ve insulted you, happy?

Bandi, your suppositions preclude the argument. You wouldn’t tell a KID…
If you want to add in all the other stuff, the analogy doesn’t hold, and wasn’t meant to (hence, kid). And you wouldn’t be doing it to show how smart you were. In your response your motives seem to be more around protecting others and furthering the truth. Something we’d likely all agree is a fairly noble thing.

I only come to that quickly as I was afraid of that exact mis-interpretation when I first posted that. I thought the surrounding context would show that, but I should have offered further stipulations.

Sorry I haven’t responded to you nowiser. I’ve been trying to keep on the track of the 2 arguments in this thread that I thought I was actually supposed to be hitting. On the homosexuality in the Bible argument I’ve given 100’s of supporting translators and direct supporting foundational arguments, little of which has any critical response, let alone an actual contradictory outside source. However, I’m still apparently

… far from winning any argument as of yet.

However, I’m happy to respond to your thoughts, as they appear to be more interesting than any others I’ve read here in response to my posts.

You are pre-supposing a prior definition of good and bad. While in the morality you may live by genocide is a bad thing, that doesn’t mean it IS a bad thing. In fact, if one accepts the Bible, one cannot take the point of view that genocide, in and of itself, is a bad thing. So there are clearly conditions in certain moral structures where genocide is OK, even good. Killing because you feel like watching someone die would fail the test, but killing to defend the state or the for the state permanently removing a criminal from society would not.

I am very interested in how you personally decide what is right and wrong, but it is of little use to you in this argument. However, I can’t think of anything that would not fit in my morality that would fit into this morality off the top of my head. It may be that I’m just not being very imaginative.

I am grounding my argument in Plato, but I can see how one might interpret Plato to be teaching something other than right being what everyone can do and the society survive.  While I’ve read some, I have to say that this is more a thought than a deeply held conviction. I guess what it comes down to is: Is it a valid reason for gays not to marry?

Well, if everyone had a same sex marriage (and remained faithful, which is consistent with the moral) society would fail. And isn’t the argument that the homosexuals are making that the law’s not fair on that very basis? “Not everyone can get married so it’s not fair.” It’s an injustice because it’s a prejudice against a segment of society. Take your pick, either they are both valid, or both not, either way, I win.

I think our trouble here is just what the argument in the end is all about: what makes something right or wrong? I know where my ideas come from. Most people have never thought about it. It’s what coming to blogs like this is all about for me. I like to see how people are dealing with that question. No doubt, I like to offer them my solution, but everyone is welcome to draw their own conclusions. I’m happy enough if they’ll just give it (right/wrong) some thought.

I never cease to be amazed by David’s capacity for subtle arrogance. Every time I think he can’t top himself he manages to do so.

It makes me regret the intellectual honesty statement I made only a few days ago.

Awww. Now my feelings are hurt.

Well, if everyone had a same sex marriage (and remained faithful, which is consistent with the moral) society would fail. And isn’t the argument that the homosexuals are making that the law’s not fair on that very basis? “Not everyone can get married so it’s not fair.” It’s an injustice because it’s a prejudice against a segment of society. Take your pick, either they are both valid, or both not, either way, I win.

Wow, this is truly amazing. You manage to take a legitimate complaint by the gays in society (not everyone can get married so it’s not fair) and stretch that to mean that if we made things fair then everyone would have to engage in a gay marriage. What the fuck about the complaint leads you to think that it implies in any way that if allowed then everyone will want a gay marriage?

It’s stunning to me that you would make a crack about ‘intellectual honesty’ and then turn around and engage in such a blatantly disingenuous argument as the above.

David, you still didn’t answer my question “Is homosexuality really so appealing to you that you can see every person adopting the lifestyle?”

If you’re afraid you’re going to be tempted to go gay I can understand how you would think the rest of humanity might falter as well - after all you know best. But if you feel secure in your “correct” sexuality and you feel that your relatives and friends are likely to remain untainted then why are you worried what a few of us sinners might do? You can single-handedly carry on the species.

Come on, let us play “house”.

Ragman, the only way I could be dropping down to your level is if, somehow, you are upset that I inferred that you are probably younger (not childlike) than you actually are.

Wow, so you’re trying to goad me into personal attacks now.

What you WROTE implied you were wiser due to your guess that you were older than I.  It’s that “I was doing this before you were born” defense when someone younger questions/criticizes you. 

As to what the fuck was going through your head… well that’s a total different story, since you seem to carry on a DIFFERENT conversation there than what is being WRITTEN on this thread. 

It’s hard to imagine just how you took that as an insult. Most adults prefer to appear to be younger than they are. Whereas your statement questions my motivations and character. But then, your ability to reason I guess is in some question, and this rather proves the point. There, now I’ve insulted you, happy?

I didn’t take it as an insult.  You don’t know me at all, yet you felt compelled to make incorrect assumptions that you are superior.  Maybe you were hoping I would respond to your chest-beating with some of my own?  Thanks for the laugh

I’m sure in your mind you dealt me a zinger.  Too bad you can’t do it for real.

Ragman, the only way I could be dropping down to your level is if, somehow, you are upset that I inferred that you are probably younger (not childlike) than you actually are.

Wow, so you’re trying to goad me into personal attacks now.

I saw you pulling the “I was doing this before you were born” defense when someone younger questions/criticizes you.  It failed, now you have to cover your ass. 

It’s hard to imagine just how you took that as an insult. Most adults prefer to appear to be younger than they are. Whereas your statement questions my motivations and character. But then, your ability to reason I guess is in some question, and this rather proves the point. There, now I’ve insulted you, happy?

I didn’t take it as an insult.  You don’t know me at all, yet you felt compelled to make assumptions that you are superior.  Were you hoping I would respond to your chest-beating with some of my own?  Thanks for the laugh!

Hmm, I didn’t think the first one got through, so I had to rewrite it later.  Oh well.

In response to Marriage’s Lineage is a Bit Convoluted.
I have a brother who is gay, so don’t attack my response. Alright, I carefully decide how to respond to things, and I don’t take things out of context.
For example, like that passage from 1 Corinthians 7:8. All you have to add to it is verse 9, and you no longer justify being single on your basis. The bible still directs fornication(or marriage out of wedlock).
Don’t forget, last of all(and I hate GWBush) that society isn’t trying to judge, but it’s making a stand one way or the other.
I know morality within myself. I’m not going to go and try and misquote scripture to prove my point.
We need to take pride in finding the truth the right way. Jesus went to the cross for us, that is a fact. You can’t twist it, there’s evidence of the shroud. You can state a view based on ignorance, but if you tried to find meaning within your own life, you can’t lie to yourself. Notice how we’re humble to our own selves. We need to be humble in this world, too. We need to accept what we have to, after our arguments. We are weak, but God is strong.
Peace, Dan

I have a brother who is gay, so don’t attack my response.

You say this like it somehow gives you some special protection from criticism because you happen to have a gay brother. “YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE MY ANTI-GAY ATTITUDE! I HAVE A GAY BROTHER AND I LOVE HIM!”

Yeah, whatever dude.

We need to take pride in finding the truth the right way. Jesus went to the cross for us, that is a fact. You can’t twist it, there’s evidence of the shroud.

It’s not a fact and the shroud is a fake. It first showed up in France in the 1350’s and the soldier who owned it refused to say how he came to acquire it. This time period is full of all manner of religious artifact frauds of which the Shroud is only one of them. A bishop’s report to Pope Clement detailed both how the shroud was being used as a healing scam on believers and contained a confession the bishop had acquired from the painter who made it. According to Joe Nickell, author of Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (1988) the following evidence has also come forth over the years:

Other evidence against authenticity, Nickell says, includes the image’s resemblance to French gothic paintings as well as such obvious flaws as a lack of wraparound distortions and “blood” flows that are “picturelike” and still bright red. In 1973 the “blood” failed a battery of forensic tests conducted by internationally known experts.

By 1980 new samples had been analyzed by microanalyst Walter McCrone who discovered that both image and “blood” areas had been painted by an artist using a red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.

Finally, in 1988 samples of the shroud’s linen were radiocarbon dated by three independent laboratories. Their results were in close agreement and indicated the cloth was woven between 1260 and 1390—consistent with the time of the forger’s confession, about 1355.

The only thing that the Shroud of Turin proves is that you’re just as gullible as medieval Frenchmen were.

You can state a view based on ignorance, but if you tried to find meaning within your own life, you can’t lie to yourself.

I’m still trying to figure out what this sentence is supposed to mean. Made me giggle, though.

Notice how we’re humble to our own selves. We need to be humble in this world, too. We need to accept what we have to, after our arguments. We are weak, but God is strong.

OK, this didn’t make a lot of sense to me either. Someone wanna translate this for me? I don’t speak gibberish too well.

Ragman, I came today to apologize for insulting you. Your follow-up post makes it easier, thank you. It’s obvious to me now why you took what I wrote as an attack. Even though I specifically modified what I wrote as not being an indication that you are child-like, merely younger. The point of what I wrote about me having done this since before you were born was that I’d been around awhile. Go back and read what I wrote. It wasn’t meant as anything towards you “I don’t know you” it began, indicating this was NOT a personal attack “I probably” meaning that I feel it’s a likely-hood, but not a statement of fact. You were looking for an affront, because you’d just made one. Then, in truly child-like fashion, I responded. Instead of just illustrating or explaining my point, which is what I set out to do, I insulted you in return. I was wrong to do so, I apologize. I should have ended the paragraph with, “There, that’s an insult, see the difference?” and changed the other sentence to begin “If I had written...”. But I was small-minded instead. I apologize for my weakness, please forgive me.

In my mind a real zinger, as you put it, is more along the lines of what was at the end of my first post in this subject “So you win, only people with no system of morals could believe that homosexuality is right.”

Dan, please translate:

The bible still directs fornication(or marriage out of wedlock).

I have not misquoted scripture, the point I was making was that homosexuality is denounced in the Bible. I was not making a statement concerning marriage. Do you disagree with the premise that the Bible denounces homosexuality?

You know morality within yourself? At the same time you’re claiming to be a believer? Doesn’t that make you God?

Brock,
How I personally feel about homosexuality is so incredibly unimportant that I don’t even understand the context of the question. The fact that you think that how you feel about something has anything to do with whether you should do it or not (ie right/wrong) speaks volumes about you, however. If you want to do it, you do it – if it feels good, it is good, which is really no morals at all. Which is to say what I stated in jest originally, “...only people with no system of morals could believe that homosexuality is right.”

You want me to not care what you do? Then you don’t mind if we end programs like welfare and social security because we shouldn’t be caring what other people do. And this is just the issue, as I pointed out in my last post. You don’t want equality, because real equity would leave you with nothing, you want a special case. It’s not that I’m against special cases, they just have to prove their merit.

Les,
I’m using the same type of argument they are. That type of argument is either valid or it is not. There is no stretch involved. If there is, please illustrate for me how. Otherwise, I’ve made a valid argument against your original challenge.

Hey, David,
In response to your “name one biblical inconsistancy & support it”: There are two creation stories in Genesis.  They don’t match up (the devil is in the details ).  I’d call that inconsistancy, so long as we define inconsistancy as “things that don’t mesh that should.”

But back to the main topic (in deference to those who do care about it).  I think people of legal age & mental competence should be able to enter into a contract of lifetime sharing with the government getting its cut.  I also think people should be able to get “married” without a license by the religious leader of your choice.  “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17) Probably not the most apt quote for the situation, but… I think it comes close. :D

I think making a law restricting who can enter into contracts of lifetime sharing is discriminatory.  Discrimination, if I remember right, is unconstitutional.  The idea of amending the constitution to sanction a certain kind of discrimination...makes my head hurt. :dohtwo:

Yup, there are 2 stories. No, they are not inconsistant with each other. Again, bring on the inconsitency.

I am totally down with your quote, and I think it’s perfectly apt. I also agree with your everything else you said, and I don’t think anything is prohibiting anyone from entering into those contracts.

Here you go les, a response to your original challenge:

First of all, same sex marriage proponents generally have a shallow understanding of marriage and believe that marriage is simply a loving relationship between people that provides access to legal benefits and whatnot. Same sex unions turn marriage into an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. I’ve heard arguments like “Who can take away our right to love whom we choose to love!” The truth is, marriage is and always has been much more than this.
Marriage exists as much for society as it does for the couples. Every society throughout history, until now, has held that marriage is designed to be a permanent relationship between men and woman that serves the good of all. Monogamous marriage encourages men to control their sexual and aggressive energy and commit to family life. Marriage also gives a faithful, caring husband to a woman, protecting her from becoming a thing to be collected and used by other men. Marriage is the best way to make sure that all children grow up with a mother and father. Same sex marriage says that none of these things matter, but these factors are exactly why every society has found marriage necessary.
Marriage gives men, woman and children what they need. Rarely have the social sciences come to a surer conclusion than on the question of how heterosexual marriage benefits men, woman and children. Statistically when men and woman marry, they live longer lives and they enjoy higher levels of physical and mental health. They are less likely to suffer from substance abuse. Husbands and wives are less likely to abuse each other sexually or physically, miss fewer days at work, hop from job to job less often, and save and invest more money than same sex couples. They suffer less stress and report being less lonely.
Likewise, children with a mother and father, compared with children raised in other situations, have less need to visit doctors for physical or emotional problems. They do markedly better in intellectual and educational development, they are more sympathetic towards others and are less likely to be in trouble at school, home, or with the police. They are less likely to use drugs, be involved in violent behavior or premarital sex and childbearing. It is less common for children who live with their mother and father to live in poverty or be victims of sexual abuse. Just as both male and female are needed to create new life, they are both need to bring a young child to healthy maturity. It is uncompassionate to deny children mothers or fathers.
So yes, there are quite a few non-religious reasons why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
I found most of this information in an article by a marriage research analyst- Glenn Stanton

By the way, this site is great, I don’t often agree with what gets said, but it’s definitely informative and funny. I read this entire thread just now and my eyes are hurting, but I can’t wait to read some more once I can see straight again.

Brett, none of what you just said explains why same-sex couples shouldn’t enjoy the same benefits.  They raise families (which is good for the children), take care of each other, live longer, etc. etc.  You haven’t given a single reason why it HAS to be one male and one female in a union.  (And I would really like to see any facts you can dig up to prove your assertion that both men AND women are necessary to bring up a child together.)

All you’ve done is list the benefits of marriage, all of which I agree with.  But you haven’t justified anything else.  I could replace all your “mother"s and “father"s in each sentence with “two parents” and it would be just as true.

Brett, from reading your response to Les, it seems that you give good reasons why “people” should marry and not why same sex couples should not.

Most of the benefits you list suggest that aligning oneself with another is healthier than going through life alone and I doubt you’ll find good statistics to suggest that society and the individuals involved are only better off because it’s a male/female union.

If you’re suggesting traditional marriages are better for society because that’s the way things have always been, I would be tempted to say American society hasn’t been that great so far. We have empty values or misaligned ones, crime ridden communities, prejudiced views toward others, starving children, religious monkeys selling portions of heaven, millions and millions going without basic health care, corporate criminals living off the fat of the land, and a thousand other imperfections I could mention.

Oh, and your opinion that same sex proponents have a shallow understanding of why marriage is important, seems itself shallow.

I hope you aren’t one of those who also believes that teens who pledge sexual abstinence tend to have fewer sexually transmitted diseases, fewer instances of pregnancy or relevant degrees of success with the abstinence pledge.

Teens Pledging Sex Abstinence Often Fail-Study
By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - U.S. adolescents who pledge not to have sex until they are married have about the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases as other teenagers and they often fail to keep their pledge, according to a study released on Tuesday.

The study of a nationally representative sample of about 15,000 youths aged 12 to 18 found that 88 percent of teenagers who pledged to remain virgins until they are married ended up having sex before marriage.

The study, funded largely by the National Institutes of Health, found that these teenagers were also less likely to use condoms when they did have sex because they had not paid attention to sex education.

Because of their ignorance about sexually transmitted diseases, “pledgers” were also less likely to seek medical help if they contracted one of the diseases, according to the study unveiled at a Philadelphia conference on sexually transmitted diseases, or STDs.

Dr. Peter Bearman of Columbia University in New York, who headed the study, said the pledge movement failed to recognize the realities of adolescent sexuality. “Ideological programs designed to make serious interventions in public health programs tend not to work,” he said.

Adolescents who pledged abstinence were much less likely than others to use contraceptives the first time they had sex. Consequently, their risk of getting STDs and becoming pregnant was as high as non-pledgers, the study found.

Only 40 percent of male pledgers had used a condom in the past year compared with 59 percent of those who did not promise to avoid sex. Among females, the gap was 47 percent to 55 percent.

The study found that pledging did succeed in delaying sex, reducing the number of partners and led to earlier marriages but it did not reduce the rate of sexually transmitted diseases.

“These movements that are ignorant of social science research defeat the purpose they set out to solve,” Bearman said.

Note - right before I posted this I saw that GeekMom made some of the same points, but I’m going to post it anyway. I spent 10 minutes writing this and that’s 10 minutes I can’t get back.

Geekmom, Alright, you could either try reading my post again a little more carefully, or I could tell you that all those benefits that I listed are comparisons of hetero to homosexual couples, I wasn’t simply listing the benefits of male-female relationships just for your enjoyment, they are comparisons!

Of course a same sex couple CAN raise a child, it is obviously possible, I’m saying that that’s not what a child NEEDS.

Notice how I said “Just as both male and female are needed to create new life, they are both needed to bring a young child to HEATHY maturity” (key word healthy)

I don’t know, sorry if I communicated that Badly, hopefully you now know what I’m trying to say.

if homosexuality is socialy acceptable in all realms, areas, etc, except for the church, what will the church become in the next 5,10,20 years.

do you guys see church eventually changing its stance on homosexuality

or do you see the church and bible-believeing Christians not changing and becoming irrelevant in society???

in the atheistic or free-thinker opinion can the Christian church continue to have influence in a society that accepts and sees homosexuality as a civil right??

The church has been forced to change their stance on MANY things throughout history. This may just be another one. I don’t know.

in the atheistic or free-thinker opinion can the Christian church continue to have influence in a society that accepts and sees homosexuality as a civil right??

The church will have as much influence as it has registered voters who go to the polls.

Brock, Ya sorry I must have written my original post badly or somthing, basically just read my response to geekmom and it’s about the same response I would send you, sorry about that.
Also, Thanks for that totally unrelated teen abstinence thing, and no, I don’t believe that teens who pledge sexual abstinence tend to have fewer sexually transmitted diseases.
I believe that teens who maintain sexual abstinence tend to have 0 stds (obviously)

Also, I have a hard time seeing where “speaker” is coming from with his points. I don’t get it, are you a Christian speaker? What I’m wondering is, why go into such painstaking research to try and prove that the bible doesn’t ACTUALLY, FULLY, 100% condemn homosexuality,

“NOWHERE in the Bible does it ACTUALLY, if translated correctly, condemn homosexuality, nowhere.”

and then later, post this?

“In the grand scheme of things, if Homosexuality is wrong, it doesn’t matter . . .think about this. . .assuming what paul says is meant literally how it is in English….Paul wrote it as a suggestion . . .but it’s not on the 10 Commandments . . .yet . . .lying is which everyone does. So who’s the bigger sinner, a straight person who lies, or a homosexual who always tells the truth?”

I mean, where do I start? Is that what you do in your life? Check the old list of the BIG TEN and if what your doing isn’t on there you just shrug your shoulders and continue? Wow
First, even IF the first quote WERE true, your somehow implying that because of God not specifically telling us that it’s a sin, then God smiles upon it!
If I give you the benefit of the doubt on the authenticity of your claim, your still creating a sort of approval or consent that God gives us, just because He didn’t say anything about it!

I mean, God may have mentioned something about addiction being bad, or causing harm to your body being bad, but He didn’t SPECIFICALLY say anything about heroin, right? (When translated correctly that is) So in the name of Jesus let’s all shoot up!! Ya! God loves that stuff!
You obviously see where I’m going with this.

Secondly, the second Quote makes all the rest of your posts somewhat useless and makes me wonder if you really know what Christianity is.
Who’s the bigger sinner? I’ll tell you who’s better off, NONE OF US. We’re all sinners. (as everyone has probably heard a billion times on this site). I hope that you would know that if you claim to be a Christian.

do you guys see church eventually changing its stance on homosexuality

The Church hasn’t changed its stance on gluttony(that I know of), but look at the rise of obesity. 

Protestants wanted demon alcohol banned so bad that they got an Amendment for that.

I can see the church still calling homosexuality a sin even if gay marriages are legal at all levels.  You can rail against gluttony, sodomy, and drinking all you want.  Just keep it in your congregation and out of the laws.

Posted by Brett - Also, Thanks for that totally unrelated teen abstinence thing…

I don’t know if it was totally unrelated! After all, we are talking about legal (marriage) and casual coupling and the effects either has on a society. Also the article points out that abstinence pledges “led to earlier marriages.” according to the study.

I guess marrying to get laid is fine, but marrying to show love and support for another of the same gender is bad for society? Don’t tell me you’re a Christian too. Alright, who invited all the damn Christians here?

Let’s be clear exactly what we’re talking about, when we refer to Glenn Stanton as a “marriage research analyst.”

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4257

Glenn Stanton-- manager of the public policy analysts at Focus on the Family.

We have to wonder whether Stanton’s work is disinterested engagement with social issues, for the purpose of determining whether homosexuality is truly dangerous to society, or whether his work is specifically oriented toward supporting a preconceived ideology.

Remember, we shouldn’t just take an analcysts word that something is “true.” Always ask for the documentation that backs up the assertion.