Same-Sex Marriage

[Romy]

 

 

Gross? So because Mr. Whatsyourface thinks it's gross they're not equal to heretosexuals? And shouldn't get equal rights?

 

Now we're on the same page! ;)

 

I'm speechless, what can I say. Didn't think I'd get to meet someone as immature as yourself on the TIF boards.

[magekillr]

Ontopic:

 

No - I don't believe that [bleep]s should be inserted into men, I think thats a bit gross.

 

You know, homophobe, not every gay male has sex, and not every homosexual is male.

[Alg]

 

 

Gross? So because Mr. Whatsyourface thinks it's gross they're not equal to heretosexuals? And shouldn't get equal rights?

 

Now we're on the same page! ;)

 

I'm speechless, what can I say. Didn't think I'd get to meet someone as immature as yourself on the TIF boards.

If something seems too dumb to be true, it's probably a troll attempt. Your comment still stands though.

Though a gay person probably thinks heterosexual sex is gross too. Let's remove everyone's equal rights except those of asexuals... Unless not having sex is gross too.

[fakeitormakeit2]

 

 

Gross? So because Mr. Whatsyourface thinks it's gross they're not equal to heretosexuals? And shouldn't get equal rights?

 

Now we're on the same page! ;)

 

I'm speechless, what can I say. Didn't think I'd get to meet someone as immature as yourself on the TIF boards.

If something seems too dumb to be true, it's probably a troll attempt. Your comment still stands though.

Though a gay person probably thinks heterosexual sex is gross too. Let's remove everyone's equal rights except those of asexuals... Unless not having sex is gross too.

I think all sexual relations are disgusting.

[Romy]

 

 

Gross? So because Mr. Whatsyourface thinks it's gross they're not equal to heretosexuals? And shouldn't get equal rights?

 

Now we're on the same page! ;)

 

I'm speechless, what can I say. Didn't think I'd get to meet someone as immature as yourself on the TIF boards.

If something seems too dumb to be true, it's probably a troll attempt. Your comment still stands though.

Though a gay person probably thinks heterosexual sex is gross too. Let's remove everyone's equal rights except those of asexuals... Unless not having sex is gross too.

 

 

I wouldn't think that...

 

Personaly, gay relations don't disgust me even one bit, and I'm straight.

 

Also, you shouldn't generalize. I assume there must exist some gays who think straight relations are gross, you can't say they all do.

[Saru Inc]

 

 

Gross? So because Mr. Whatsyourface thinks it's gross they're not equal to heretosexuals? And shouldn't get equal rights?

 

Now we're on the same page! ;)

 

I'm speechless, what can I say. Didn't think I'd get to meet someone as immature as yourself on the TIF boards.

If something seems too dumb to be true, it's probably a troll attempt. Your comment still stands though.

Though a gay person probably thinks heterosexual sex is gross too. Let's remove everyone's equal rights except those of asexuals... Unless not having sex is gross too.

 

TRUE. vaginas are [bleep]ing disgusting, pardon the crudity.

[Pirate_Felix]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

The idea that God can't be disproved is insane. Now, if you were to say a deist god can't be disproved, I would agree. However, the Christian God is something that exists within a certain boundary, which is that created by the Bible. The errors in the Bible are also errors in God, because from what the Bible says, they're part of the same thing. God is a perfect being though, but from what the Bible says he often fails to meet his own standards, or back track on his words. The perfect being would do no such thing, leading to areas to disprove him. This isn't even using science to disprove him, just knowing that humans made up errors whenever they came up with this God.

 

That's not disproving his existance, that's finding errors.

I also never referred to any specific God.

Lastly, I don't believe in any God, and as such I see discussing with an atheist whether or not God exists as pointless.

A perfect God with errors is imperfect. It disproves his existence because such things can't exist.

I'm referring to any God with a holy text.

According to that Christian god cant exist. He created us to his image according to the bible, and even Adam and Eve were imperfect

[Saru Inc]

In his image, not a carbon copy of him. In other words, God looks like us, but doesn't act like us.

[fakeitormakeit2]

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves.

 

And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.

[Saru Inc]

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves.

 

And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.

 

 

qft

[OldJoe]

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves.

 

And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.

 

 

qft

Sorry for not speaking more internet language than "lol", what's "qft"?

[Saru Inc]

Well it means either two things lol:

 

 

uncensored:

 

Quite [bleep]ing true

 

 

Censored:

 

Quoted for truth.

[Juhnie]

3. As for the stereotypical Protestant who says your going to burn in hell because you don't believe in the "One true God"

Okay, that is one SERIOUSLY offensive stereotype. I don't think anyone will burn in hell because they don't believe in the God. Neither does our congregation pastor. Or anyone else Lutheran I know. <_<

 

What comes to the original topic, I don't think we shouldn't allow same-sex marriages, but instead equalize registered partnership with it. Here in Finland at least registered partnership is otherwise completely similar to marriage in every other way except that you can't adopt children and you can't change your surname to be the same (and you can't have a wedding in the church, obviously). The third I can understand due to religious reasons (it's something I have had converstations about with our congregation pastor), but the lack of being allowed to do the first two are just ridiculous and should be allowed in my eyes.

 

Just my 0.02.

[RexMilotic]

 

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

The idea that God can't be disproved is insane. Now, if you were to say a deist god can't be disproved, I would agree. However, the Christian God is something that exists within a certain boundary, which is that created by the Bible. The errors in the Bible are also errors in God, because from what the Bible says, they're part of the same thing. God is a perfect being though, but from what the Bible says he often fails to meet his own standards, or back track on his words. The perfect being would do no such thing, leading to areas to disprove him. This isn't even using science to disprove him, just knowing that humans made up errors whenever they came up with this God.

 

That's not disproving his existance, that's finding errors.

I also never referred to any specific God.

Lastly, I don't believe in any God, and as such I see discussing with an atheist whether or not God exists as pointless.

A perfect God with errors is imperfect. It disproves his existence because such things can't exist.

I'm referring to any God with a holy text.

 

 

If it was as simple as that, religion wouldn't be as popular (for the favour of Fakeitormakeit2, I'm referring to any religion that revolves Gods :P).

 

There are different types of Gods though, some of which can be disproved based upon how they're set up. I agree that some religions can't be disproved, however, a majority of the world believes in one (I say this because 3/5 of the major religions are all based from the same God) that can be. Most people either choose to ignore though.

[RexMilotic]

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves.

 

And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.

 

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error.

 

Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgement. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing.

[Laura]

Rex, just note that the MultiQuote button addresses multiple people, but without the double post. ;)

[fakeitormakeit2]

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves.

 

And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.

 

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error.

 

Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgment. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing.

Everything in Adam and Eve is metaphoric, its not as though there's an actual tree which fruit gives the ability to judge what is right and what is wrong. And Hitler thought he was doing right, he didn't judge it was right in the sense that he rewrote it in the ethics of the conscience.

 

God also does not create what you do. He is omniscient but not controlling. He knows what you will do because His view of time is isolated from ours; we see it in a line, He sees it as a blob all at the same time. He is seeing it, saw it and still to see it. Therefore, free choice is still possible. Also your reaction to your own sin also determines your fate, i.e. if you're sorry you are purified, if you are prideful you go to hell.

You are thinking of predestinationalism.

 

And right and wrong transcends above personal decision. Regardless of there being a god, gods or not, we are born with a concept of basic evils and basic goods. It's in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry, and it's in our nature to know its wrong to beat someone.

[Alg]

 

I wouldn't think that...

 

Personaly, gay relations don't disgust me even one bit, and I'm straight.

 

Also, you shouldn't generalize. I assume there must exist some gays who think straight relations are gross, you can't say they all do.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to be a generalization. Did mean for it to say that what is gross is subjective. :D

[Saru Inc]

3. As for the stereotypical Protestant who says your going to burn in hell because you don't believe in the "One true God"

Okay, that is one SERIOUSLY offensive stereotype. I don't think anyone will burn in hell because they don't believe in the God. Neither does our congregation pastor. Or anyone else Lutheran I know. <_<

 

What comes to the original topic, I don't think we shouldn't allow same-sex marriages, but instead equalize registered partnership with it. Here in Finland at least registered partnership is otherwise completely similar to marriage in every other way except that you can't adopt children and you can't change your surname to be the same (and you can't have a wedding in the church, obviously). The third I can understand due to religious reasons (it's something I have had converstations about with our congregation pastor), but the lack of being allowed to do the first two are just ridiculous and should be allowed in my eyes.

 

Just my 0.02.

 

 

Lmao then whats the point. O btw, if you say you guys believe that you won't go to hell if you don't believe in god, then why do you believe in God?

[RexMilotic]

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves.

 

And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.

 

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error.

 

Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgment. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing.

Everything in Adam and Eve is metaphoric, its not as though there's an actual tree which fruit gives the ability to judge what is right and what is wrong. And Hitler thought he was doing right, he didn't judge it was right in the sense that he rewrote it in the ethics of the conscience.

 

God also does not create what you do. He is omniscient but not controlling. He knows what you will do because His view of time is isolated from ours; we see it in a line, He sees it as a blob all at the same time. He is seeing it, saw it and still to see it. Therefore, free choice is still possible. Also your reaction to your own sin also determines your fate, i.e. if you're sorry you are purified, if you are prideful you go to hell.

You are thinking of predestinationalism.

 

And right and wrong transcends above personal decision. Regardless of there being a god, gods or not, we are born with a concept of basic evils and basic goods. It's in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry, and it's in our nature to know its wrong to beat someone.

 

 

Oh fun, using examples from the Bible and then casting away those examples as metaphors whenever someone has a point against you. If you're going to say it's a metaphor and disregard it, don't use it at all, because it only hurts you by bringing down your own argument.

 

God knows exactly what you're going to do, those consequences, and where you're going to be when you die. That is what omniscience is: knowing everything. You were going to Hell/Heaven the day God existed, because he knows everything that will happen. There are also multiple accounts in the Bible where God will interfere with the fates of humans, which messes with the idea of free will. By having God interfere with people, he is directly or indirectly affecting the decisions of other people, which interferes with our free will.

 

Right and wrong do not exist. The idea that there are set morals is just insane, because in order to survive there are times when we are better off without them. Morality is something created by humans based on the person, the time period, and the situation. That is why we don't have the same set of beliefs as people 100 years ago.

[Romy]

And right and wrong transcends above personal decision. Regardless of there being a god, gods or not, we are born with a concept of basic evils and basic goods. It's in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry, and it's in our nature to know its wrong to beat someone.

 

What? Not at all. Not even the slightest.

 

 

Morals are gained, you are in no way born a moral person.

 

It's not in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry-

A. You can prove that with the fact that not everyone sympathizes.

B. You can prove that with that fact that it's usualy those who've suffered that can relate to other's suffering.

 

 

 

 

Also, imagine you were born in an isolated island, away from any society. The only 2 humans you've ever known are your parents.

 

Your parents, in order to prove my point, decided to make an experiment (I'd assume you're a moral person today), and see if they could turn their son into a murderer when they take him to human society.

 

Throughout your life, you were taught hatred towards other humans (your parents could come up with say... that humans have treated them badly and whatnot, and make up stories of how they deserve to die etc), and about very specific, detailed and fast ways to kill humans.

 

 

Your hatred towards them, in addition to your knowldege of killing, and countless explanations of how they deserve that (remember that you don't know of any of the moral ways of sociery, and couldn't possibly understand their murdering is wrong) would surely make you murder any person you could when brought to society, correct?

 

 

 

Any man or woman can be raised to be a murderer, which directly proves morals are NOT something you're born with.

[fakeitormakeit2]

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves.

 

And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.

 

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error.

 

Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgment. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing.

Everything in Adam and Eve is metaphoric, its not as though there's an actual tree which fruit gives the ability to judge what is right and what is wrong. And Hitler thought he was doing right, he didn't judge it was right in the sense that he rewrote it in the ethics of the conscience.

 

God also does not create what you do. He is omniscient but not controlling. He knows what you will do because His view of time is isolated from ours; we see it in a line, He sees it as a blob all at the same time. He is seeing it, saw it and still to see it. Therefore, free choice is still possible. Also your reaction to your own sin also determines your fate, i.e. if you're sorry you are purified, if you are prideful you go to hell.

You are thinking of predestinationalism.

 

And right and wrong transcends above personal decision. Regardless of there being a god, gods or not, we are born with a concept of basic evils and basic goods. It's in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry, and it's in our nature to know its wrong to beat someone.

 

 

Oh fun, using examples from the Bible and then casting away those examples as metaphors whenever someone has a point against you. If you're going to say it's a metaphor and disregard it, don't use it at all, because it only hurts you by bringing down your own argument.

 

God knows exactly what you're going to do, those consequences, and where you're going to be when you die. That is what omniscience is: knowing everything. You were going to Hell/Heaven the day God existed, because he knows everything that will happen. There are also multiple accounts in the Bible where God will interfere with the fates of humans, which messes with the idea of free will. By having God interfere with people, he is directly or indirectly affecting the decisions of other people, which interferes with our free will.

 

Right and wrong do not exist. The idea that there are set morals is just insane, because in order to survive there are times when we are better off without them. Morality is something created by humans based on the person, the time period, and the situation. That is why we don't have the same set of beliefs as people 100 years ago.

 

First of all to romy, you gain virtues, not morals. And with the starting point of a child before any exterior corruptions you have sympathy unless you have some kind of natural impediment that doesn't allow you to. I've seen my niece [almost 3] play with her younger brother. He tripped over her and he started crying. As a result, she was upset and say "It's ok Gab..." and started crying because she thought she hurt him.

 

 

As for Rex, you're very wrong. Just because I believe Adam & Eve never happened, as it is a myth, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I'm not disregarding it, but such an assumption that once something is declared not real it devalues is obviously normal for someone of your mindset.

 

Also intercessions and interventions (look them up if you'd like, I'm on the run for a meeting I can't explain them, little time) are different then predestination and changing the course of things. For an intervention and intercession you have to be welling to accept them.

 

And our general sense of morality is the same as people 100yrs. just altered to the time now. When a set of beliefs combined with new understanding of revelations(modernization) is different then changing morality. It's the same morality, expressed differently.

[unorclan]

Homesexuality is

 

1. A choice

2. Unnatural

3. Comes from lust

 

Of course most everybody is going to disagree with those 3 points, but overall they hold true whether a person's opinion agrees with it or not.

[Rebdragon]

Homesexuality is

 

1. A choice

2. Unnatural

3. Comes from lust

 

Of course most everybody is going to disagree with those 3 points, but overall they hold true whether a person's opinion agrees with it or not.

Up front, do you plan to say that and leave or fight a tough battle? Not that there aren't arguments for your beliefs, you're just going to have trouble finding backing.

[Alg]

Either way...

Homesexuality is

 

1. A choice

So go choose to be gay for a week or two. Just for fun. You might like it.

2. Unnatural

Which is why every species that has recreational sex has homosexuality. This includes dolphins and some species of primates.

3. Comes from lust

Probably in the same sense as how heterosexuality comes from lust, I would assume.

 

Of course most everybody is going to disagree with those 3 points, but overall they hold true whether a person's opinion agrees with it or not.

Not really