Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Gay Marriage: Is the Debate Over?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    No.
    Ok. You seemed to be presenting it as an example of homophobia in response to seer's post, but thanks for clarifying.
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Sure, as did David who committed murder and adultery. As did Moses who disobeyed God. In other words just because men do things in scripture does not mean that God condones it.
      Of course not, but in the cases of David and Solomon you would have biblical authors condoning and even practicing polygamy. So would 'the' biblical view of marriage be that of Moses, David, Solomon, the actual authors of these books, or just the interpretation of Jesus who did not author any books of the Bible?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Of course not, but in the cases of David and Solomon you would have biblical authors condoning and even practicing polygamy. So would 'the' biblical view of marriage be that of Moses, David, Solomon, the actual authors of these books, or just the interpretation of Jesus who did not author any books of the Bible?
        Are you suggesting that these authors never did anything that displeased God? Did God ever explicitly condone polygamy?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Of course not, but in the cases of David and Solomon you would have biblical authors condoning and even practicing polygamy. So would 'the' biblical view of marriage be that of Moses, David, Solomon, the actual authors of these books, or just the interpretation of Jesus who did not author any books of the Bible?
          Moses and David both committed murder. Hosea married a prostitute. Their actions do not mean that they were biblical.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Are you suggesting that these authors never did anything that displeased God?
            Of course not! That's kind of my whole point. We have no reason to assume that everything the biblical authors did (including everything they wrote or otherwise taught) always pleased God completely.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Did God ever explicitly condone polygamy?
            I don't believe so.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Of course not, but in the cases of David and Solomon you would have biblical authors condoning and even practicing polygamy. So would 'the' biblical view of marriage be that of Moses, David, Solomon, the actual authors of these books, or just the interpretation of Jesus who did not author any books of the Bible?
              I'm a little confused at what you're saying here...if you don't mind my asking, what is your position on polygamy and the Bible?
              I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Moses and David both committed murder. Hosea married a prostitute. Their actions do not mean that they were biblical.
                Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by biblical. Certainly, they are biblical stories. When the biblical authors wrote of Solomon's many wives, I think they were sometimes condoning the practice, but I'm not sure of that. I'd have to go back and check.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                  I'm a little confused at what you're saying here...if you don't mind my asking, what is your position on polygamy and the Bible?
                  I am opposed to polygamy and in favor of the Bible.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    I am opposed to polygamy and in favor of the Bible.


                    As good a response as I could have expected. Thanks.
                    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      There is no such disease as homophobia!!! What the hell happened to you Spartacus?
                      There was a time when I would have objected to the term-- it's certainly not the same as arachnophobia, etc-- but I've found it to be a convenient shorthand for "prejudice and violence directed against LGBT persons," which includes those phenomena observable in families that unilaterally disown or reject any child who happens to be gay and in Christian organizations such as schools that would refuse to consider hiring anyone who openly identifies as gay, regardless of whether they're committed to celibacy.

                      These are things that happen. They may not be things any of us have done or are even indirectly responsible for, but we have to deal with their effects nonetheless.
                      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Yes, and if you supported traditional marriage, for any reason, even legitimate reasons, you are labeled homophobic.
                        You think I haven't experienced this firsthand? I was a member of more than one college club dedicated (through various means) to defending marriage as a permanent relationship between one man and one woman. I know what it's like to be accused by my peers of homophobia... but I also know that, when people actually take the time to listen and understand the argument, they agree that it makes some sense: take this piece, written by a personal friend. The argument for traditional marriage (or conjugal marriage, or whatever you want to call it) is compelling. It's reasonable.

                        And yet the first response is to suspect us of homophobia. Why? Because so many LGBT people have experienced various forms of rejection on account of sexual preferences-- something over which they do not exercise anything like direct control. I've learned that the best way to defuse these extreme reactions is not to deny that they have experienced this rejection (commonly understood as the result of this vaguely defined thing called homophobia), but rather to know how to properly distance ourselves from it. Trying to deny that the rejection exists only makes it worse: you have to defuse the landmine, you can't just dance around it.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          There was a time when I would have objected to the term-- it's certainly not the same as arachnophobia, etc--
                          Which means that it is basically belittling those legitimate phobias. And to be blunt, it literally means fear of "the same."

                          but I've found it to be a convenient shorthand for "prejudice and violence directed against LGBT persons,"
                          And what do you call prejudice directed against traditional marriage proponents?

                          which includes those phenomena observable in families that unilaterally disown or reject any child who happens to be gay
                          I've seen families disown children for their choice in a mate, for alcoholism, smoking marijuana, etc, yet we see no thunderous denunciation from the left with a term that is normally reserved for a clinical diagnosis. It's not fear, nor is it irrational. It is sticking to a standard of behavior consistent with the family's morals and values.

                          and in Christian organizations such as schools that would refuse to consider hiring anyone who openly identifies as gay, regardless of whether they're committed to celibacy.
                          I would hope so. Jesus DOES change lives if we allow Him, does He not?

                          These are things that happen. They may not be things any of us have done or are even indirectly responsible for, but we have to deal with their effects nonetheless.
                          But none of that rises to the level of equating them with those who have legitimate psychological diagnoses.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          - Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            And what do you call prejudice directed against traditional marriage proponents?
                            I like heterophobia myself.

                            "b..b..but I don't hate heterosexuals..."

                            Watch the irony pour off in waves.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              I've seen families disown children for their choice in a mate, for alcoholism, smoking marijuana, etc, yet we see no thunderous denunciation from the left with a term that is normally reserved for a clinical diagnosis.
                              I'm sorry, this argument is infuriatingly bad. The key difference should be obvious. All of those examples involve disowning children for what they do, and as such are utterly incomparable to disowning children for who they are. That absolutely is irrational. Not that disowning your own child is ever right, but there's an entire galaxy of difference here.

                              And Cerebrum, you should be ashamed of yourself for publicly endorsing that argument.
                              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Which means that it is basically belittling those legitimate phobias. And to be blunt, it literally means fear of "the same."
                                Fine, we can call it something you think is more appropriate, but don't deny that it exists.

                                And what do you call prejudice directed against traditional marriage proponents?
                                Ignorance and bigotry.

                                I've seen families disown children for their choice in a mate, for alcoholism, smoking marijuana, etc, yet we see no thunderous denunciation from the left with a term that is normally reserved for a clinical diagnosis. It's not fear, nor is it irrational. It is sticking to a standard of behavior consistent with the family's morals and values.
                                Is there thundrous denunciation of this from the left? They're all too busy pointing their cameras at rich, white 40-year-olds who feel entitled to tax benefits.

                                How is pushing a teenager out on their own with no financial or emotional support (for no reason other than their admission that they are attracted to people of the same sex) consistent with any decent morals or values?

                                I would hope so. Jesus DOES change lives if we allow Him, does He not?
                                Just so we're clear, are we talking about reparative therapy, celibacy, or both?
                                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X