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

Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

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

  • Sea of red
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    The bottom line is that most liberal Christians I have met are their own little gods. They know better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sea of red
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    You need to follow the evidence and if it leads to a conclusion you don't like. Deal with it. Such is life.
    I try.

    And you got mine. These people are coming forth and saying they thought their childhood was missing something. We can't just ignore it because what they are saying goes against the narrative. Do they have a valid point or not?
    I have answered this before but I will again. It really doesn't matter what they "feel" they missed out on. People get brought up in great situations and still find things to rag on their parents, it's just the world we live in. Besides that, we don't know the entire dynamic of their life, and the circumstances that led to that point. Simply going "well it's a gay family that must be it!" because it fits neatly into an ideology doesn't help anybody. It goes deeper than that.

    Among the things a parent must provide for, they have to provide for their children's emotional well being too. Since both children of gay parents and single parents report they felt their childhood was missing something; does that mean that those homes are the best environment for kids to be raised in?
    Yes, but a child has to learn you can't always have the things want. I know people that always wanted a sibling or grandparent in their life, should they be accommodated? I don't know why you keep saying 'children' as if it's some sort of universal truth that kids in gay and single households turned out screwed-up (or whatever you're getting at) because it's not.

    So what is the best possible environment for a child to live and grow up in?
    You know my answer to this.

    Is it not important to make sure we get this thing right?
    Well, yeah it is. Thing is, gay couples tend to be more financially stable and are more likely to plan the actually family out more carefully, since they typically have that option.

    The variables are complex, so what?
    I'm sorry you want to be simple but it's not.

    What is the best environment for children to grow up in?

    Emotional well being doesn't compute for many people. If providing for kids was as simple as making a checklist, about anybody can be a parent. These kids are saying they are missing something. Are they right? Should we be concerned and do whatever we can to make the best situations for the most we can produce? Yes or no?
    Child abuse rate in lesbian couples:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_781624.html

    Children of same-sex couples:

    https://youtu.be/MJnkp6D3j7c

    So what's your response to those kids, Crystal? Does their opinion have the same weight?

    Have you ever been part of one? How do you know? Besides, what measurements are we using? Good citizens? What is a 'good citizen' and how do we measure that? Likewise, how about their future career. What group performs best, when it comes to their careers? How about their relationships? What group does best, when it comes to relationships? There's more to being a parent than merely keeping them out of trouble or meeting some check marks.
    I'd like to not get too personal on my own life, but can say I know people from both single and same-sex households that are doing well. I can't get any deeper than that without revealing names I'm afraid. So believe me or don't, I don't really care.

    Finally, I never said anybodies love isn't legitimate, but love without focus or discipline or many other things isn't the best environment for raising a kids either. Even Homer Simpson, obviously loves his kids a great deal, but is he the best parent? Remember, we are trying to discover what is the bet environment for kids to be raised in and why that is the best environment.That is what we are trying to discover.
    Redundant.

    The rest was pretty much ground that we've covered already.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered.
    You apparently have this notion that I read 20+ page threads from beginning to end and hang on every single word you write, even though I've told you before that I tend to skim threads and only respond to people who directly respond to me or if something happens to catch my attention. So I didn't deliberately skip anything, as you imply. Rather, I just didn't see your earlier response. Got it?

    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state.
    Why, as Christians, should we be willing to accept the pluralistic, secular state's notion of what constitutes "harm done" when such an evaluation is based on a worldview that rejects God and the Bible?

    Oh, and I like your little jibe that a Bible believing nation that bases its laws on the commandments of God will become the next Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that America was founded by Bible believing men who based their laws on the commandments of God, and we were the freest and most prosperous nation on earth for centuries. The real irony of your claim is that the further we move away from God and the Bible, the closer we come to the oppressiveness of a country like Saudi Arabia.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 05-28-2015, 11:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    We've been through this discussion numerous times and I have no particular patience to do so again here and now. In any event, it detracts from a discussion I've been finding worthwhile regarding empirical studies of development for children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents. Since I'm hoping to clear my desk at some point before hitting the road again for the weekend, I'm going to refrain from a fruitless discussion in hopes of preserving the meaningful one.
    Just so it is clear - your, or the secular, standard of harm is meaningless, arbitrary and quite possibly unknowable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    How for instance do you/we know what kind of harm the redefinition of marriage will cause down the road? It is obvious that the sexual revolution, when it comes to stable intact families, and STDs, has been harmful. Never mind the millions of unborn children killed in the womb. So this arbitrary standard of harm is meaningless or unknowable. But the question is Sam - why do you as a Christian support gay marriage? It certainly is not a Biblical model - or are you just following popular opinion? That your support is simply based on the accidental timing and place of your birth?
    We've been through this discussion numerous times and I have no particular patience to do so again here and now. In any event, it detracts from a discussion I've been finding worthwhile regarding empirical studies of development for children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents. Since I'm hoping to clear my desk at some point before hitting the road again for the weekend, I'm going to refrain from a fruitless discussion in hopes of preserving the meaningful one.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The foundation of Christianity is God's word as revealed in the Bible, so when someone maintains a belief that is clearly contrary to scripture then I think it is right and proper to encourage them to reexamine the foundation of their Christian faith. Sam claims that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, God really didn't mean all instances of homosexuality despite such nuance being completely absent from scripture (not to mention thousands of years of Jewish tradition and teaching). This is blasphemy as far as I'm concerned, and once you've started down that road, how easy it would be to go from "Surely God wouldn't condemn a committed, monogamous homosexual couple" to "Surely God wouldn't condemn someone just because he has honest doubts about the resurrection of Jesus". This is why I encourage Sam to reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith. Either he's going to accept what the Bible says, or he's not, and if he's not then he needs to stop calling himself a Christian. It's as simple as that.
    The bottom line is that most liberal Christians I have met are their own little gods. They know better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I think it's possible for someone to be completely wrong about this issue, and still retain a foundational belief in Christ.

    I think where reevaluation might come in handy is figuring out the source of conflict between one's own personal opinions on the subject and the consensus interpretation of scripture. I mean, I can see the conflict being born out of ignorance, a fringe interpretation of scripture, or just reluctance to let go of our own personal moral rule, rather than trust God's moral rule--to trust that he knows what he's saying/doing. There are lots of things that, as a Christian, I wish God was okay with, but I made a choice a long time ago that I would stop kicking against the pricks, and simply put my trust in him (and maybe that's the reevaluation you're talking about). Our secular environment is sooo sympathetic to others, no matter how taboo or non-normative the behavior or cause is anymore, and it's because of Christianity's role in history. I don't think the bleeding heart liberal stereotype could exit in a world without Christ's teachings. However, when you attempt to take away the spiritual, and big picture message of Christ, and squeeze out all of the God in it, there's nothing left. The heart is in the right place, but it's not backed by truth. It's sad.
    The foundation of Christianity is God's word as revealed in the Bible, so when someone maintains a belief that is clearly contrary to scripture then I think it is right and proper to encourage them to reexamine the foundation of their Christian faith. Sam claims that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, God really didn't mean all instances of homosexuality despite such nuance being completely absent from scripture (not to mention thousands of years of Jewish tradition and teaching). This is blasphemy as far as I'm concerned, and once you've started down that road, how easy it would be to go from "Surely God wouldn't condemn a committed, monogamous homosexual couple" to "Surely God wouldn't condemn someone just because he has honest doubts about the resurrection of Jesus". This is why I encourage Sam to reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith. Either he's going to accept what the Bible says, or he's not, and if he's not then he needs to stop calling himself a Christian. It's as simple as that.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    You weren't too subtle, don't worry; while we disagreed on the merits of divorcing secular law from religious law, we at least understood the other's position. Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered. I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state. And I believe history is clear that we don't really want it to be (think: Saudi Arabia, Salem, etc.)
    How for instance do you/we know what kind of harm the redefinition of marriage will cause down the road? It is obvious that the sexual revolution, when it comes to stable intact families, and STDs, has been harmful. Never mind the millions of unborn children killed in the womb. So this arbitrary standard of harm is meaningless or unknowable. But the question is Sam - why do you as a Christian support gay marriage? It certainly is not a Biblical model - or are you just following popular opinion? That your support is simply based on the accidental timing and place of your birth?

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    You weren't too subtle, don't worry; while we disagreed on the merits of divorcing secular law from religious law, we at least understood the other's position. Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered. I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state. And I believe history is clear that we don't really want it to be (think: Saudi Arabia, Salem, etc.)
    Understood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    This is one of the points I was attempting to make in posts #183, #185, #187. Maybe I was a bit too subtle.
    You weren't too subtle, don't worry; while we disagreed on the merits of divorcing secular law from religious law, we at least understood the other's position. Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered. I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state. And I believe history is clear that we don't really want it to be (think: Saudi Arabia, Salem, etc.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And I'll add that if Sam persists in his belief that the Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality (even though it explicitly does), or that God meant only to condemn homosexuality outside of a committed monogamous homosexual relationship (despite the fact that no such distinction is even hinted at in scripture), then he needs to seriously reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith.
    I think it's possible for someone to be completely wrong about this issue, and still retain a foundational belief in Christ.

    I think where reevaluation might come in handy is figuring out the source of conflict between one's own personal opinions on the subject and the consensus interpretation of scripture. I mean, I can see the conflict being born out of ignorance, a fringe interpretation of scripture, or just reluctance to let go of our own personal moral rule, rather than trust God's moral rule--to trust that he knows what he's saying/doing. There are lots of things that, as a Christian, I wish God was okay with, but I made a choice a long time ago that I would stop kicking against the pricks, and simply put my trust in him (and maybe that's the reevaluation you're talking about). Our secular environment is sooo sympathetic to others, no matter how taboo or non-normative the behavior or cause is anymore, and it's because of Christianity's role in history. I don't think the bleeding heart liberal stereotype could exit in a world without Christ's teachings. However, when you attempt to take away the spiritual, and big picture message of Christ, and squeeze out all of the God in it, there's nothing left. The heart is in the right place, but it's not backed by truth. It's sad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    And I'll add that if Sam persists in his belief that the Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality (even though it explicitly does), or that God meant only to condemn homosexuality outside of a committed monogamous homosexual relationship (despite the fact that no such distinction is even hinted at in scripture), then he needs to seriously reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Let's say for the sake of argument that every study you cite in favor of homosexuality is 100% airtight and proves beyond dispute that homosexuals and children raised by homosexuals are no better or worse off than the average heterosexual. This doesn't change the fact that God has unambiguously declared homosexuality to be a sin in the harshest of terms. For that matter, I'm sure there are studies showing that people who remarry after a divorce are just as happy as couples who never divorced, or people who had sex before marriage are just as happy and committed as people who were virgins until their wedding night, but the fact remains that divorce and extramarital sex are still a sin. Isn't that, in and of itself, sufficient reason for Christians to stand opposed to homosexual marriage?
    This is one of the points I was attempting to make in posts #183, #185, #187. Maybe I was a bit too subtle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    "Sufficient" here means "the studies tell me what I want to hear".
    That's why I was pickin' on Sam for that -- if it truly was "sufficient", we wouldn't still be arguing this. (Then, again, this is Tweb )

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    ...we have sufficient empirical evidence showing that children of same-sex couples are developmentally similar to children of opposite-sex couples.
    "Sufficient" here means "the studies tell me what I want to hear".

    But it's ultimately irrelevant. Let's say for the sake of argument that every study you cite in favor of homosexuality is 100% airtight and proves beyond dispute that homosexuals and children raised by homosexuals are no better or worse off than the average heterosexual. This doesn't change the fact that God has unambiguously declared homosexuality to be a sin in the harshest of terms. For that matter, I'm sure there are studies showing that people who remarry after a divorce are just as happy as couples who never divorced, or people who had sex before marriage are just as happy and committed as people who were virgins until their wedding night, but the fact remains that divorce and extramarital sex are still a sin. Isn't that, in and of itself, sufficient reason for Christians to stand opposed to homosexual marriage?

    Your constant running to sociological studies to defend something that the Bible explicitly condemns brings to mind Paul's warning in Colossians:

    "Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ."

    Leave a 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
375 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X