Same-Sex Marriage

[Saru Inc]

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.

 

 

I'd like to see some proof please.

 

 

1) Ummm?

2) Prove it.

3) Prove it.

 

The first one is just well... What? No one believes that but my mom and all the 80 year old conservatives out there.

 

 

Oh wait, my mom believes Satan recruits them. XD

[magekillr]

Haha:

 

New Law Would Ban Marriage Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

[unorclan]

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

 

I very well could, but see point 2 and you'll understand why I don't. It's completely unnatural and not appealing at all.

 

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

 

The percentage of animals that instinctively commit homosexuality is so low (below 1%) that it is cleary not normal behavior, it is very much abnormal. Animals have no intellect and therefore they cannot make a decision based off anything other than the circumstance and they will follow one impulse if the circumstances are best for that impulse and from that homosexual behavior occurs, but very rarely. To claim that this is a "natural occurrence" is absurb because animals, when matured, are driven to reproduce and in certain circumstances they end up attempting to mate with one of their own gender.

 

 

I'd like to see some proof please.

 

Can you prove to me that otherwise is true?

 

 

Nothing can be proven in this debate until there is a standard to compare each argument too. My standard is nature itself and that which is natural, your standard is opinion.

[Skull]

I hate to do it, but I'm going to have to go to an Amazing Atheist video for this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jrh8VVwMI4

 

I didn't actually re watch it, so it might not be as fitting as I remember. I do remember it being pretty high on the douche scale though.

[Alg]

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

 

I very well could, but see point 2 and you'll understand why I don't. It's completely unnatural and not appealing at all.

But then why would anyone else choose to? Especially if it's going to lead to discrimination...

 

The percentage of animals that instinctively commit homosexuality is so low (below 1%) that it is cleary not normal behavior, it is very much abnormal. Animals have no intellect and therefore they cannot make a decision based off anything other than the circumstance and they will follow one impulse if the circumstances are best for that impulse and from that homosexual behavior occurs, but very rarely. To claim that this is a "natural occurrence" is absurb because animals, when matured, are driven to reproduce and in certain circumstances they end up attempting to mate with one of their own gender.

The animals in question include dolphins and chimpanzees, which happen to be on the higher end of the scale in regards to intellect. These are species that also use tools, so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Bonobo_and_other_apes

Hell, if it's unnatural, why does it happen at all?

 

[fakeitormakeit2]

^See I particularly don't like this about some atheists. They have a decent point in some things, then they drag religion into it and bash it a bit. Really, is that necessary or relevant beyond them just wanting another opportunity to [bleep] about religion? For people who claim to be so accepting and pro-free thought, some of them are just like the goth kids in South Park "all you have to do to be a non-conformist is dress like us, hang out with us and listen to the same music as us." except reflected on free thought instead of conformity.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

Using Adam and Eve as an example to prove a point is fine, but whenever I use Adam and Eve to also prove a point, you just said it's a metaphor and doesn't really count. I see problems with that.

 

You don't get what omniscience and predestination is do you? If you have an all knowing God, then that God knows if you're going to Heaven or Hell before you existed. It's just that simple, and trying to say otherwise would mean that God is not omniscient, which causes error in the Bible, which is part of God. Next, having God intervene into human affairs causes us to change things that we shouldn't, which is interfering with our free will.

 

Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. A century ago it was immoral to have a black person and white person be married, but now that's accepted. That's just one example of how morals have changed. Morality is subjective, it is not a universal constant.

[warri0r45]

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.

 

1) Really? When did you choose to be attracted to women? Could you just choose to be attracted to men? Sexuality is not something you choose, it's something that's inherent in us. It's pretty clear that no homosexuals feel they have a choice in the matter.

 

2) What exactly do you mean? That it doesn't produce babies? Of course that's true, but that doesn't make it "unnatural". Homosexuality is very much a part of the sexual behaviour of many animals, as it is with humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

Added, there are a lot of things that are man-made that people have no problem with, so why is this supposed to be a good argument against homosexuality?

 

3) Being a form of sexuality, of course homosexuality has to do with lust, as does heterosexuality. That's not to say that homosexuals can't genuinely love people of their own sex.

 

The only thing that will convince other people that your arguments are true is if they are logically coherent and rational. You've not even bothered to make an argument (you've just asserted things as fact), so what do you expect people to get out of your post?

[Saru Inc]

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

 

I very well could, but see point 2 and you'll understand why I don't. It's completely unnatural and not appealing at all.

 

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

 

The percentage of animals that instinctively commit homosexuality is so low (below 1%) that it is cleary not normal behavior, it is very much abnormal. Animals have no intellect and therefore they cannot make a decision based off anything other than the circumstance and they will follow one impulse if the circumstances are best for that impulse and from that homosexual behavior occurs, but very rarely. To claim that this is a "natural occurrence" is absurb because animals, when matured, are driven to reproduce and in certain circumstances they end up attempting to mate with one of their own gender.

 

 

I'd like to see some proof please.

 

Can you prove to me that otherwise is true?

 

 

Nothing can be proven in this debate until there is a standard to compare each argument too. My standard is nature itself and that which is natural, your standard is opinion.

 

 

Go gay for two weeks. Starting right now. I triple dog dare you. You can't, right? IF anything you may be bi, which in your eyes is just as sinful. Under the presumption you're a Christian, read this site, babe.

 

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Its very interesting. Also, I dearly hope you've read some articles stating from Christian and Atheistic scientists that homosexuals are homosexual at birth. So, I ask you, if it is present at Birth, how is that not natural?

[RexMilotic]

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.

 

No, something that holds true would be something that can be backed other than by your opinion. I'll tell you you're wrong, give you my opinion, and then back it, which you're going to be unable to do.

 

1. It's not a choice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2007/08/does-finger-siz.html

Now, even though those traits may not always occur, the fact they occur that often is something to be looked at. Those are things that you can not change by choice.

 

2. It's not unnatural

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

There are multiple accounts of this occurring with animals, which are as much of nature as we are.

 

3. Comes from Lust.

Homosexuality deals with attraction, in the same manner heterosexuality deals with attraction. Just because you're attracted to someone doesn't mean all you want to do is have sex with them. Backing this is as simple as asking you if you want to have sex with every single girl you see? The answer should be no, if it's different, you may have a problem.

[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.

 

Using Adam and Eve as an example to prove a point is fine, but whenever I use Adam and Eve to also prove a point, you just said it's a metaphor and doesn't really count. I see problems with that.

 

You don't get what omniscience and predestination is do you? If you have an all knowing God, then that God knows if you're going to Heaven or Hell before you existed. It's just that simple, and trying to say otherwise would mean that God is not omniscient, which causes error in the Bible, which is part of God. Next, having God intervene into human affairs causes us to change things that we shouldn't, which is interfering with our free will.

 

Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. A century ago it was immoral to have a black person and white person be married, but now that's accepted. That's just one example of how morals have changed. Morality is subjective, it is not a universal constant.

I didn't say Adam and Eve doesn't count, saying everything is metaphoric might have been a little too over simplistic. I meant I don't actually believe there is a tree that gives fruit that gives you the ability to judge to change whether something is right and wrong, a serpent never had legs and then they were taken away as punishment. people did not originate from the same couple, etc. However the moral of the story stands just as strong. The tree is to show since the creation of man there has always been temptation. It does not mean that since its a tree, and vegetation was created after man in the story man existed before evil. No, that's looking way too far into it and missing the entire point.

 

Knowing something and deciding something are two different things. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between knowing all and deciding something without the person having any effect on it is. You obviously do not know what the Bible is if you think its "part of God". The point of the Bible is to show the inspiration of God's good news through His inspired followers (the writers). Faults in the Bible, which there are some contradictions and repetitions if you read closely, do not say God is imperfect. They show the blending of several sources of accounts in the Bible. Intervention does change the course of things, but if I killed someone, that would change his course of free will as well. We ourselves do things that change the course of other people's futures. Any interventions that occur are triggered by an acceptance of agreement though. Abraham's family is blessed with promises of numerous descendants. Why? He made a covenant with God, etc. Intercessions are the same deal. You prayer for intercession with the idea that you are asking and accepting of it.

 

Some morals are bent by society and formed on our own accord, morals that accompany a further inspection of conscious that are compiled by society. But we are infused with certain morals and human responses. There is Natural Law which guides morals. Laws are made that are separate and not Natural Law, and they eventually evolve into what society would deem a moral. However, on the other side of the planet one might not say so. But a common ground of morals are developed from the same universal Natural Law.

[Zierro]

I very well could, but see point 2 and you'll understand why I don't. It's completely unnatural and not appealing at all.

 

I don't see how you can control your sex drive. It's just an urge. Whether you choose to suppress it or whatever is where the choice may come in, but the fact that it's there in the first place shows that you can't just pick your orientation. Just like you can't pick what foods you like.

 

The percentage of animals that instinctively commit homosexuality is so low (below 1%) that it is cleary not normal behavior, it is very much abnormal. Animals have no intellect and therefore they cannot make a decision based off anything other than the circumstance and they will follow one impulse if the circumstances are best for that impulse and from that homosexual behavior occurs, but very rarely. To claim that this is a "natural occurrence" is absurb because animals, when matured, are driven to reproduce and in certain circumstances they end up attempting to mate with one of their own gender.

 

There is a very low percentage of redheads. Does that make them unnatural?

 

My standard is nature itself and that which is natural, your standard is opinion.

 

Define nature...

[1230abcz]

Many important issues lie unsolved in our flawless society – the war in Iraq, the economic depression, the environmental disaster, and gay marriages. Why, in our utopian society, should an evil such as the joining of two men or two women be permissible? Why, as a race of people with equal rights for all, have we not extirpated the sin that is so infamously labeled Gay? Can we truly be safe in the United States of America while this issues burns ever so brightly in all of its importance?:( Forget issues like potential nuclear warfare (terrorists have feelings too) or the melting of ice bergs (polar bears need to find a new home anyway) until real problems like gay marriages are solved. If this atrocity is left to go on, well, as a race of humans, we cannot survive. If these Gays are left to reproduce, their nonexistent babies of doom will rule over us with their imaginary malice of destruction. If these things continue to grow in the depths of our society, their nefarious intentions will swallow us whole and swarms of gay babies will eat everything else that might have so unfortunately survived “The Gay Gayocaust of Gays.”

 

The history of gay people, more appropriately called “homos,” ranges back from when man and woman first came upon the once perfect earth. The mantle heaved, the trees uprooted, the dinosaurs went extinct, when gay people made their arrival onto our planet; even Pangaea, the God of Continents, reportedly exclaimed: “Oh hellz to da no” and split up into innumerable pieces. Once the gays reproduced and spread their corrupted dogma amongst the “straights,” all homophobia broke loose. As straights evolved, so did the gays. Historians believe that all major catastrophes are, in part, caused by the “homos.” The Kennedy assassination, for example, came about when Robert E. Lee (a prominent general of the Civil War) found a very gay time machine that had been teleported off from some very gay island (as it had a fantabulous designer magazine and preposterous amounts of beach sand on it) into his Virginian home. One fateful day, Lee whimsically frolicked off towards a field of pretty pink flowers (a few unreliable reports say he might have power-walked instead) to a shooting range and decided to take the mysterious time machine (for which he did not know the uses of) along with him to brag to Lincoln and his senate buddies. Lincoln, reportedly a gay, shot at the time machine, which ostentatiously erupted into a rainbow of colors and peace signs and sent the bullet into the heart of Kennedy’s chest – the trajectory of the bullet was later extrapolated to a lone building where a man had been sleeping to see his idol, the president, walk through the streets.

 

Alas, it’s truly a pity that an imperative cause such as this will be washed down to the bottom of our list of problems along with other issues like whether cats really do fall on all fours or if groundhogs actually do go out to see their shadows to determine if summer has arrived or not. Any non-gay person with any form of common sense would agree that gay marriages are a leech that continues to sap at the veins of freedom that our country holds so very dearly.

 

Do not worry though, good citizen, for I have a solution that will stop this menace and finally put at end to our miseries. My proposal is a straightforward one; hold all funding that is given out to develop cleaner fuels, work on internal improvements, and the war to help develop an “antigayotic” drug, which will be fatal to all possessing the “homoeroticus” gene. Until this goal is reached, absolutely everything must come to an abrupt halt, for can we really live on in constant fear of invisible babies and their fists of evil?

[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.

 

 

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.

 

Using Adam and Eve as an example to prove a point is fine, but whenever I use Adam and Eve to also prove a point, you just said it's a metaphor and doesn't really count. I see problems with that.

 

You don't get what omniscience and predestination is do you? If you have an all knowing God, then that God knows if you're going to Heaven or Hell before you existed. It's just that simple, and trying to say otherwise would mean that God is not omniscient, which causes error in the Bible, which is part of God. Next, having God intervene into human affairs causes us to change things that we shouldn't, which is interfering with our free will.

 

Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. A century ago it was immoral to have a black person and white person be married, but now that's accepted. That's just one example of how morals have changed. Morality is subjective, it is not a universal constant.

I didn't say Adam and Eve doesn't count, I said the moral of the story is an example but the reason why there was a physical tree was to show that with the creation of man there has always been the desire to acquire said fruit.

 

Knowing something and deciding something are two different things. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between knowing all and deciding something without the person having any effect on it is. You obviously do not know what the Bible is if you think its "part of God". The point of the Bible is to show the inspiration of God's good news through His inspired followers (the writers). Faults in the Bible, which there are some contradictions and repetitions if you read closely, do not say God is imperfect. They show the blending of several sources of accounts in the Bible. Intervention does change the course of things, but if I killed someone, that would change his course of free will as well. We ourselves do things that change the course of other people's futures. Any interventions that occur are triggered by an acceptance of agreement though. Abraham's family is blessed with promises of numerous descendants. Why? He made a covenant with God, etc. Intercessions are the same deal. You prayer for intercession with the idea that you are asking and accepting of it.

 

Some morals are bent by society and formed on our own accord, morals that accompany a further inspection of conscious that are compiled by society. But we are infused with certain morals and human responses. There is Natural Law which guides morals. Laws are made that are separate and not Natural Law, and they eventually evolve into what society would deem a moral. However, on the other side of the planet one might not say so. But a common ground of morals are developed from the same universal Natural Law.

 

The story has it's errors though, which ruins the entire thing, especially when the error is something that huge. I'm not going to continue arguing with it because it's pointless and doesn't further the topic anyways.

 

Again, this is much too confusing. Predestination is where you're destined to go after death before you ever existed. God knows where you're going to be going, because he knows everything. Where you're going after death has already been determined, and every choice you make regarding it is already known. Any choice you make was already going to happen, because he knows it. There's no other way around this. Everything you do was already going to happen, the reason is because God knew it would happen. The Bible is part of the Trinity of God, which is what I'm referring to. The Bible says it's infallible and the God in it is perfect, but then it contradicts itself, and leads to errors in the God inside of it.

 

I'm going to give you free will, because I know everything you're going to do. I'm also going to interfere in your life multiple times, and purposely change the things that are going to happen to you, and the choices you're going to make. That is not what I call free will.

 

Since I can't even fathom how you believe universal laws exist, I'm just going to have to ask for an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1230abcz, I love your post.

[meol]

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.

Gays continued to be gay during the Nazi Holocaust, and they continue to be gay in Uganda and Iran, despite plenty of social harassment and violence that comes even from the government itself. Do you sincerely believe it all comes down to a lustful choice in the end?

 

There's a quote that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What kind of support do you have for what you say? Or are you only talking out of first hand experience?

 

 

--

Partially unrelated, I found this investigation to be relevant.

Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

[OldJoe]

Partially unrelated, I found this investigation to be relevant.

Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

I don't give much for psychiatrists, but that must be a joke since it's not true in most cases.

[Rock Hard]

 

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

 

I'm not a homophobe; I love watching my girlfriend get off with girls for me.

 

Still think [bleep]s shouldn't be put in men. Thats my belief - Be more tolerant.

 

;)

 

Edit: Homophone isnt a word. Oooh, unless it refers to those gay2gay premium chatlines? Irrelevant regardless!

[Asmodeous4]

 

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

 

I'm not a homophone; I love watching my girlfriend get off with girls for me.

 

Still think [bleep]s shouldn't be put in men. Thats my belief - Be more tolerant.

 

;)

You better be trolling dude.

[Nenga]

 

Edit: Homophone isnt a word. Oooh, unless it refers to those gay2gay premium chatlines? Irrelevant regardless!

What are they teaching you in school? Forget the whole homophobic argument you apparently have never been though 1st grade English.

 

Main Entry: Hoe·mo·phone

Pronunciation: \ˈhä-mə-ˌfōn, ˈhō-\

Function: noun

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary

Date: 1843

 

1 : one of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling (as the words to, too, and two)

2 : a character or group of characters pronounced the same as another character or group

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophone

[Rock Hard]

 

Edit: Homophone isnt a word. Oooh, unless it refers to those gay2gay premium chatlines? Irrelevant regardless!

What are they teaching you in school? Forget the whole homophobic argument you apparently have never been though 1st grade English.

 

Main Entry: Hoe·mo·phone

Pronunciation: \ˈhä-mə-ˌfōn, ˈhō-\

Function: noun

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary

Date: 1843

 

1 : one of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling (as the words to, too, and two)

2 : a character or group of characters pronounced the same as another character or group

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophone

 

Been out of school for quite a few years now, but hell thats pretty awesome. I get it; '[bleep]' and '[bleep]' for example? No day in which you learn something is entirely wasted!

[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.

 

 

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?

The point there is that then registered partnerships and marriages would be precisely the same except for the religious part, so the religious people who don't want same-sex marriages can't really complain about it.

 

And what the heck are you talking about with the last sentence? You think there's no reason to believe in God if not believing doesn't make you go to hell? <_<

[Romy]

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.

 

The mere fact that not all kids would proves my point. It's faily possible she saw any relatives/friends/someone on TV act like that and simply imitated him.

 

 

 

Morals (or virtues) are all acquired throughout your life.

[Romy]

^See I particularly don't like this about some atheists. They have a decent point in some things, then they drag religion into it and bash it a bit. Really, is that necessary or relevant beyond them just wanting another opportunity to [bleep] about religion? For people who claim to be so accepting and pro-free thought, some of them are just like the goth kids in South Park "all you have to do to be a non-conformist is dress like us, hang out with us and listen to the same music as us." except reflected on free thought instead of conformity.

 

He didn't seem to have much choice considering he was trying to counterpoint anti-gayness from the religous side...

[Saru Inc]

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.

 

The mere fact that not all kids would proves my point. It's faily possible she saw any relatives/friends/someone on TV act like that and simply imitated him.

 

 

 

Morals (or virtues) are all acquired throughout your life.

 

I concur.

[krimi]

sums up the current state of affairs pretty well I would say!