Farewell Poopsmith

That would be lending legal weight to the tradition of marriage, though, which you just said you think is a bad idea. It seems inconsistent to say that the law shouldn't recognise marriage, but that it should recognise marriage ceremonies.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
if a liberal church wants to throw their Christian convictions to the curb and "marry" a gay couple in such a case, fine.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're equating your religious views with all Christians. If a church wanted to do that, they would hardly be discarding their convictions, now would they?
 
Traitorfish said:
That would be lending legal weight to the tradition of marriage, though, which you just said you think is a bad idea. It seems inconsistent to say that the law shouldn't recognise marriage, but that it should recognise marriage ceremonies.
Click to expand...

I don't actually care whether it does or not. Its legal name can be "Civil Union" rather than marriage (Which, incidentally, does make a difference to me) without it necessarily mattering how its done. But again, I don't care. I think allowing the (Religious or otherwise) ceremony to work is simply a timesaver and cuts down on government bureaucracy, but why not? Its still legally a civil union, even if the vows were for marriage. Obviously almost nobody's going to call it a "civil union" they'll either consider it marriage, or consider it a sham altogether. For instance, whether the government calls a gay union "Marriage" or civil union, I still say its nothing, but the former kinda tells me I have to accept it more than the latter does.

Arakhor said:
Once again, you're equating your religious views with all Christians. If a church wanted to do that, they would hardly be discarding their convictions, now would they?
Click to expand...

Read the Bible:mischief:
 
*reads the Bible*

If a liberal church wished to extend the Christian hand of friendship and tolerance to a marginalised group, I would say that they were acting like the Good Samaritan. I think Jesus even mentions the other religious conservatives simply walking on by, not that that would ever be applicable these days.
 
Arakhor said:
*reads the Bible*

If a liberal church wished to extend the Christian hand of friendship and tolerance to a marginalised group, I would say that they were acting like the Good Samaritan. I think Jesus even mentions the other religious conservatives simply walking on by, not that that would ever be applicable these days.
Click to expand...

An actively gay man living a life of sin = a man who is suffering and needs help?

:lol:
 
To be fair, the marginalization went both ways and Samaritans were (and are) even more religiously conservative than the Jews. They consider Moses to be the last true prophet and reject all religious innovations made since his lifetime. They insist on reading the Torah not only in its original language, but in its original Paleo-Hebrew script. (By the time of Christ Jews already preferred using Aramaic calligraphy.)
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Correct, but you don't help a gay man overcome his sin by blessing a marriage between him and another man...
Click to expand...

And if he doesn't want your help?

Conversely, you don't "help" homosexuals by implicitly blaming them and trying to shame them.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Correct, but you don't help a gay man overcome his sin by blessing a marriage between him and another man...
Click to expand...

:confused: how can a gay man even exist under the "gay sex is sin" premise ?? Surely all men living as homosexuals are actually straight men somehow giving into some sinful temptation .

If I'm wrong , then that's a bit mean of God to create him that way then punish him for acting on his nature .
 
GhostWriter16 said:
An actively gay man living a life of sin = a man who is suffering and needs help?

:lol:
Click to expand...
Out of interest, why is homosexuality immoral? Hopefully you have something more substantial than "Bible says so", because that sort of Divine Command ethics is completely out of step with your moral claims regarding abortion, civil liberties, property, etc. (which aren't exactly consistent themselves, but whatever), so we simply could not regard that as a sincere answer on your part. I'm not looking for a debate, here, I'm just trying to figure out why this is something that you think should influence state policy.
 
rugbyLEAGUEfan said:
If I'm wrong , then that's a bit mean of God to create him that way then punish him for acting on his nature .
Click to expand...

But we are all sinners by nature. It's just a matter of when and how. God's love is absolute. Freedom from punishment/bad things happening is not. It's a misinterpretation of Christianity that claims you are going to have an easier life for being a Christian or that disciples of Christ are going to receive anything but screwjobs.
 
rugbyLEAGUEfan said:
:confused: how can a gay man even exist under the "gay sex is sin" premise ?? Surely all men living as homosexuals are actually straight men somehow giving into some sinful temptation .

If I'm wrong , then that's a bit mean of God to create him that way then punish him for acting on his nature .
Click to expand...

Well, by "Gay man" I'm referring to any man who thinks he's gay, but I don't deny someone can be "Born gay." That's just a natural part of the sin nature. It is not, however, sin itself.

Traitorfish said:
Out of interest, why is homosexuality immoral? Hopefully you have something more substantial than "Bible says so", because that sort of Divine Command ethics is completely out of step with your moral claims regarding abortion, civil liberties, property, etc. (which aren't exactly consistent themselves, but whatever), so we simply could not regard that as a sincere answer on your part. I'm not looking for a debate, here, I'm just trying to figure out why this is something that you think should influence state policy.
Click to expand...

Natural biology of the sex act.
 
I'm afraid I still don't follow. What does that have to do with morality?
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Gay sex isn't natural.
Click to expand...

Not sure why I'm replying but I guess I just want to clarify if I'm not missing something.

So TF asks why gay sex is immoral . GW answers due to it being unnatural .

I got it right ? Please confirm so that I can sit back and observe this be utterly dismantled safe in the knowledge that I understand the premise correctly .
 
Huayna Capac357 said:
Yes it is. It shows up in lots of animal species and has been happening throughout the history of humankind. It's just as natural as heterosexual sex.
Click to expand...
Come now, let's not confuse the issue with facts. Let's just take his position as he presents it, and see if we find it coherent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Formaldehyde
American Muslims fear a new wave of Islamophobia
17 18 19
Replies
379
Views
23K
El_Machinae
El_Machinae
N
2012 Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses Results
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
6K
NYHunter
N
caketastydelish
Santorum drops out of the race.
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Takhisis
Takhisis
downtown
Romney: I won't revoke Visas for young illegal immigrantants
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
GoodGame
GoodGame
Ajidica
Santorum Surges Up From Behind!
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
say1988
S
Back
Top Bottom