God’s view of marriage and parenting

The last post talked about religion in the public square.  This one is for those within the church.  Non-believers are welcome to comment, but please stay on topic.

As I addressed in Problems with pro-gay theology, there are many false teachers and/or confused people in the church who hold one or more of the following erroneous beliefs:

  • The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.  This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
  • The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.  This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
  • The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describes gay behavior as sinful.  However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable.  This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships. 
  • But as I’ve mentioned many time, the Bible couldn’t be more clear:

    1. 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
    2. 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
    3. 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
    4. 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

    Item 1 gets talked about the most, but I encourage people to search for the passages that relate to items 2 and 3 and then honestly ask themselves if they think the Bible even hints at oxymoronic “same sex unions” as being part of God’s plan.  I was reading this passage yesterday and this idea really stood out:

    1 Corinthians 7:1-10 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband.

    There is not even a hint that God has any plan for marriage other than one man and one woman.  Really, read the whole book and see.  I find the arguments from silence (i.e., “But the Bible never specifically says “same sex marriage” or gay parenting is wrong”) to be ridiculous and a sure sign that you are talking to person who is deceived and/or a deceiver. 

    P.S. If a professing Christian wants to claim that Paul was backwards or confused, then I offer this:

    • Paul was a really cerebral guy.  Read all his letters and see.
    • You should know that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
    • Are you claiming that Paul was wrong and you are not and that I should trust your revelation over his?  I’m skeptical of that.

    0 thoughts on “God’s view of marriage and parenting”

    1. Which translation of the Bible are you using Neil. None of mine represent 1 Corinthians chapter 7 in this manner?

      My response is that regardless of what scripture they find to support homosexual behavior or lifestyle it was not part of the plan.

      There is no way man can multiply in a ‘same-sex’ marriage and to promote one leaves the ‘species’ to extinction.

      This is why it comes under the doctrine of Satan.

      Like

      1. Hi Mizclark,

        That’s the ESV (English Standard Version). I’m sort of phasing over to it from the NIV.

        Re. doctrine of Satan — yep, you got it. It is no coincidence that the “Christians” who advance it typically deny the exclusivity of Jesus, are pro-abortion, etc.

        Like

    2. OK,

      I began using the New American Standard a few years ago. It seems to be the closest to the King James without the headache.

      I love how you tied this in. I’ve often said Paul was speaking to homosexuals in this passage. I’ve gotten a lot of flack, because people assume (I mean) it is permisson to marry, but it really isn’t if you think about it in the simplest terms.

      His first instruction is to remain celebate, marriage was creation for men and women to avoid fornication. It comes off very offensive for those reading the other translation because it explicitly says: It is not good for man to touch a woman.

      Even Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more.

      Like

      1. The NASB is a good version, especially if you want a more literal translation of key words.

        Re. going and sinning no more — excellent point. I think Jesus would say the same thing to homosexuals.

        Like

      1. I don’t know what Fox said, but I if people are upset, you can blame yourself. You close comments on the last post, and then sneak in your rebuttal afterwards? Hey it’s your site, but that’s pretty low.

        Like

        1. Stop whining. I explained why I closed the comments.

          And considering the garbage I let through already, you can rest assured that Fox’s was deleted for good reason. But thanks for judging me anyway.

          Like

        2. I had no problem with you closing comments – it was the right thing to do. I have a problem with the way you characterized my arguments, and took shots at my character instead of what I wrote.

          Like

        3. Your blog, your prerogative. You do yourself no favours, however, by failing to engage with the arguments presented by myself and others. Lonewolfarcher seems particularly unwilling to actually address those arguments – he’d rather just call them “idiotic”, “dumb” and accuse me of lying than actually take them up, Such is Christian apologetics, I guess.

          Like

        4. It was ironic that you blew your whole sermonette with the last comment.

          Stick around or read some old posts. Serious arguments get taken seriously here.

          But repeatedly denying things like the definition of marriage, the fact that by nature and design heterosexual pairs produce children and that it is ideal for kids to have a mother and a father will get your scorn or result in you being ignored, as they should.

          I have been very generous in taking those arguments seriously for a time, because I know so many people have gotten away with horrible thinking in our culture for so long. It is hard for them to realize just how ridiculous their sound bites really are.

          But after multiple corrections on one thread I’ve had enough. It really sucks the fun out of blogging to spend 45 mintues per day correcting such inanities.

          Like

        5. Having said that, I do apologize for losing my patience. I should have just shut down comments earlier when they got so repetitive.

          Like

        6. I too apologize. I sometimes have to temper my love for the truth and winning the argument, with trying to be compassionate and staying above the tactics of the other side. It gets frustrating when the other side continues to refer to believers as “dumb” and the like.

          Neil, I greatly enjoy your blog, the discussions it evokes, and the fact that so many others here believe in the truth of the scriptures. I will try to behave better in the future.

          Like

        7. It wasn’t a sermonette, it was an observation; and I didn’t blow anything, sicne I communicated exactly what I wanted to communicate.

          I haven’t denied that marriage has a definition; I’ve denied that the definition of marriage is exactly as you define it. I haven’t denied that heterosexual pairs produce children; I’ve denied that this is relevant to whether people should be allowed to marry. I haven’t denied that it is ideal for a child to have a mother and a father; I’ve denied that this is the sole criteria for whether people should be allowed to marry.

          So perhaps now you’d care to answer the points that I made previously?

          Like

        8. No one was dodging arguments merkur. The comment trail was so long I couldn’t keep up unless I stayed on the blog and followed the recent comments trail to a tee. I don’t have time to do that more than a few minutes at a time.

          I don’t remember ever accusing you of lying. I did refer to a couple of arguments as dumb but I stated the reasons for calling them dumb.

          Sorry I offended you. Please know it was never my intent.

          Like

        9. You said that my statement was untrue, the corollary of which is that I was lying. You didn’t state any reasons for calling my arguments dumb, you simply called them dumb and then disappeared. And no apology is necessary; you didn’t offend me, you merely embarrass yourself.

          Like

        10. “You said that my statement was untrue, the corollary of which is that I was lying.”

          Logical fallacy, false correlation, dichotomous thinking The statement could be untrue and you could be making it out of ignorance, or sincerely believe it to be true based on incorrect facts. It does not logically follow or correlate that you were lying. And further if a person is lying, it does not mean they are a liar.

          You’re taking something personally, I think, that wasn’t meant to be so. I hope this clarifies things a bit.

          Like

        11. LCB: might I suggest that you would have looked less foolish if you’d bothered to check the meaning of the word corollary before you started typing. You write: “The statement could be untrue and you could be making it out of ignorance, or sincerely believe it to be true based on incorrect facts.” I am clearly not making it out of ignorance, since I presented the reasons why I believe it to be true, and since nobody addressed the evidence that I presented, I have no reason to believe those facts are incorrect. So the corollary remains sound, and you’re wasting my time. Unless you want to actually address the points raised, why bother typing?

          Lonewolfarcher: I’ll accept your apology if you deal with the points that I raised.

          Like

        12. a. I fail to see how I’ve “attacked” LCB, unless pointing out the flaws in somebody’s argument is an attack.
          b. I didn’t accuse you of attacking me, I accused you of failing to engage my arguments.
          c. It surprises me not one little bit that you refuse to address the arguments which I raised.

          Like

        13. merkur, you seem to have a tough time grasping the concept of why the thread was closed. if you want to comment here then move on to the new topic or wait for another thread to your liking. if you want to live in a fantasy world where we’re dodging your arguments then be my guest. but babysitting commenters who don’t get the point isn’t my idea of fun.

          Like

        14. Why exactly is it a fantasy world? I have made reasonable points and asked reasonable questions without insulting anybody. I have repeatedly requested people to engage with those points, and the only response so far has been to have them called “idiotic” and “untrue”, and for a brief discussion about the meaning of the word “corollary”. If you think that isn’t dodging my arguments, then I’m fascinated to know what is.

          You don’t have to babysit me, by the way – you just have to answer my points. But I doubt you’ll do that – you’ll huff and puff and probably end up closing the comments again, or try to change the subject. I’ve found that’s what normally happens when I try to have genuine discussions with Christian apologists, but I’d love for you to show me wrong.

          Like

        15. You were unable to use the word corollary correctly. It’s difficult to take you seriously when you insist you’re being personally attacked and called a liar, when we reply by pointing out that by the definition of the words you are using, you aren’t being personally attacked and called a liar.

          In other words, your response to any legitimate points is a personal attack.

          Prove your position with logic and reason. If what you say is true, the proof should be easy.

          Like

        16. Why should I eat crow? That was the definition that I was referring to. If my statement is untrue, it readily follows that I am lying. That’s not the only possibility, of course – but I never claimed that it was.

          If you’re determined to be a pedant, LCB, you really need to pay more attention to detail.

          Like

        17. I feel like I’m reading Alice in Wonderland, “Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more and no less.”

          By the definition of the word, we’ve demonstrated that your statement was false.

          At this juncture you might want to consider the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

          Like

        18. “but I if people are upset, you can blame yourself”

          Personal responsibility?

          Individuals are responsible for their own emotions, not Neil. Please less emotional thinking and more reason. Thank you.

          Like

    3. Was it the link you found offensive? If that’s the case, I’m sorry you think it’s offensive, but I believe it’s an extremely accurate portrayal of what happens whenever the topic of homosexuality is broached.

      Or was it the invisible sky man thing that got you? Yeah, I’ll admit that was unnecessary.

      Like

      1. No, it was idiotic and pointless and your comment was blasphemous, as you noted. The “invisible sky man” is a standard, lame atheist sound bite that proves nothing except your immaturity and inability to reason. You finally got off moderation, Fox. Don’t mess it up.

        Like

        1. Another one is the flying spaghetti monster. I have come to the point now where when an atheist brings that up I just start laughing. Funny they don’t even realize that they have taken their “there is no God” argument into “I worship this idol”. Either way it is idolatry.

          Like

        2. The Irish constitution demands that blasphemy be defined as a crime. Changing the constitution can only be done by a referendum, which is very expensive for a government that is practically bankrupt (although they could tack an extra question onto the Lisbon treaty referendum to be held later this year but it seems nobody thought of that). So instead, they rush through some seriously flawed and poorly thought out legislation which effectively incentivises outrage. It also fails to define what “a sufficient number” of outraged people is.

          As far as I’m aware no particular religious group either asked for or had anything to do with the new blasphemy law; it is a typical piece of government bungling and taking the easy way out, and that’s what the Church of Dermotology is trying to highlight. We already have more members than the Bahai’s and are all set to start finding things to be outraged about once the law takes effect in October.

          It’s all just a bit of fun really, there’s much more serious things in life to worry about.

          The Church of Dermotology

          Like

    4. Neil, when I read that 1 Cor 7 passage, one of my favorite passages, I get the distinct impression that chastity is superior to marriage. Although Rich B. says I’m crazy.

      What do you think?

      Maybe I’m biased in favor of chastity.

      Like

      1. I just listened to a John MacArthur series on marriage and divorce. He referred to this passage, but noted that singleness isn’t for everyone (including him). Some have that gift. If I only read this passage I would draw your conclusion, but when you read the other marriage passages I think it balances out a bit.

        Hey, if you can do chastity, more power to you. Though we could use more little Wintery Knights to spread the Good News . . .

        Like

      2. I feel it important to recall that the traditional understanding is that both are goods, but merely that chastity is a superior good because it is in more direct imitation of both Christ’s life and of the Holy Trinity, in that the individual who is chaste ‘reproduces’ in a fashion closer to the Holy Trinity, in a non-sexual spiritual fashion.

        Further, if a person is called to marriage, it would be better for them to be married and to serve God’s will than to be chaste and serve their own.

        Like

      3. Paul was definitely of the belief that marital relationships were a distraction to the work of the church. Not that one couldn’t do church work and be married, but that you could give more of yourself to the work of the church if you were single.

        However, he also in a couple of places in his letters admitted that few could be like him in that manner and therefore they should marry to avoid fornication. Was Paul anti-marriage? No. Was Paul himself willing to sacrifice marriage for the cause of Christ? Absolutely.

        Like

        1. P.S. I think Paul also realized that chastity in totality was counterproductive to the production of future generations. You have to have marriage and sexual relations in the bounds of those marriages in order to propagate the human race, as well as future generations of the church. Again, I think Paul’s personal stance was that he could do more good being chaste and throwing himself fully into spreading the gospel and leaving marriage and children to other Christians.

          Like

      4. Just had to comment here because I just wrote a post last Saturday (which escaped all notice). In it I explained (among other things) that the word and the idea of “chastity” is literally moral sexual behavior. In that sense, chastity would be EITHER sex in marriage OR celibacy. I think you were shooting for “celibacy is superior to marriage”. (I would disagree, given Paul’s “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” statement. The reason he preferred celibacy was “the present distress” so that “the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife.” In other words, it’s not about “marriage” or not; it’s about other issues.

        Like

    5. Neil,

      If you’ll allow it, I’d like to respond to one comment from Ryan in the last post that you closed. I got back to it too late to do anything about it. Actually, I’d like to respond to several things, but I’ll leave it at just this one:

      Ryan,

      I use the term “homosex” as an abbreviation, because I don’t care to bear the whining that would come from more effecient abbreviations, such as “homo” or “mo”. At the same time, I don’t much care what label best pleases a sinner. A liar or thief is a liar or thief whether they like the word or not. In the real world, I refer to moes as people, just like I do anyone else.

      But here in the blogosphere, as we discuss a particular subject, I’ll use the words I choose out of desire to get my points across. I no longer care to walk on egg shells, sugar coating my words in order to prevent offense. Y’all should just assume I mean no offense whether I use the word “homosexual” or any of the other sundry variations and synonyms. Considering the opposition feels justified in using terms of their choosing without worrying how the other 98% of the population feels about it, they should just lighten up about what someone like myself calls them in print. Besides, I was under the impression that the movement doesn’t like being seen as a bunch of sissies. Comlaining about an abbreviation ain’t helpin’.

      Like

        1. If being an intellectual giant means I get to be some colossal, hulking beast with an aptitude for algebra, I can live with that.

          Ba dum tsh.

          Like

        2. LCB,

          This 1 Corinthians scripture, is it the justification the church uses for not allowing priests to marry?

          I never understood this teaching from Paul. As I have gotten older and have more understanding of the law (one has to be fully versed in the law to really understand Paul) I began to wonder if this was specifically for them (because they were ‘wholly corrupt’).

          Corinthians during this time were famous for their sexual escapades even selling children for this purpose. I just think its stange compared with his marriage lesson to the Ephesians in chapter 5.

          Like

        3. Well firstly, priests not marrying is a matter of discipline, not doctrine.

          Secondly, the evangelical counsels have a lot more to do with the practice than that reading of Paul:

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

          Jesus lived chastely, and it’s in imitation of Him.

          It’s important not to fall into a common mistake, to make the good the enemy of the great. Both marriage and chastity are goods, they are great goods, but chastity is a greater good.

          Like

      1. I call people here Christians, not Xians or worse, I capitalize God and The Bible, and I call people whatever they choose to be called. You would be best served doing the same. You can take the log out of your eye while you’re at it.

        Like

      2. Marshall, thanks for the clarification. I meant to respond to that part of the thread. I figured that you were just using it as an abbreviation and not as a pejorative. And I assumed that LWA was joking about using “homo.”

        Regulars should agree that you don’t see many pejorative names here (unlike the prejudice and mockery that others bring, e.g. “sky daddy,” “afraid of gays,” etc.) I let some of those through because they tend to come across as concession speeches (i.e., they obviously have weak arguments if they resort to those things) but I have my limits.

        Speaking for myself, I aim at precision as often I can, i.e., “pro-legalized abortion.”

        Otherwise, I generally use whatever the group wants to be called, though it isn’t always obvious. The friend I had lunch with yesterday prefers the term black, not African-American (oh, and don’t bring up Jesse or Al if you know what’s good for you).

        Like

        1. It was tongue-in-cheek. I couldn’t believe the commenter was really taking offense to the shortening the way they were. It was probably poorly executed on my part and did more harm than good, but I think my use of the term “homosexual” has proven that I don’t use the pejorative normally.

          Like

      3. “I use the term “homosex” as an abbreviation”

        What, are those three letters on the end of homosexual too much effort for you to type?

        Like

        1. No. But as I said, if I remove three more letters, the whining increases. Aren’t you paying attention? If you look at my clarification, you’ll see that I normally refer to homosexuals as “people” when dealing with them in the real world.

          Then again, since offense will be taken anyway, and I don’t plan on typing out “homosexual” every time I need to refer to the condition, I’ll henceforth go with what’s easiest for me, because no, I don’t care to expend the effort.

          Like

        2. How about extending common courtesy like the rest of us do. Here’s an even shorter word you can use: GAY It’s not offensive, and you’ll be able to keep your typing speed up, which I understand is far more important to you than being nice to people.

          Like

        3. Trying to control a person’s speech is usually a sign of a losing argument. Focus on the content, not the words (unless the words are being used incorrectly).

          Like

        4. (unless the words are being used incorrectly)

          The word in question here is “homosex”. I don’t know where he got it, but it’s not a word, and it is clearly used as a slur. He can use any word he likes – I was just pointing out that when you use a slur to refer to a group of people, your point soon becomes lost. He said he was trying to save letters, and I gave him a shorter alternative word. I’m not trying to control his speech.

          Still disagree with me?

          Like

        5. Sorry, Ryan. I don’t jump when the activist snaps his fingers. I dont’ approve of the co-opting of the word “gay”. I find it offensive that such a tiny portion of the population dares not only to redefine words, but insist that the rest of us abide those redefinitions. So thanks, but no thanks. I’m perfectly happy using the appropriate words and/or their abbreviations.

          Like

        6. I understand that you jump when Jesus snaps his fingers though. Didn’t he have something to say about being nice to people?

          And by the way, none of the words currently used to refer to homosexuals were “co-opted” by the community, including the words “gay” and “queer”. It was Christians that called them that. Gay often meant “sexually immoral”
          back in the 1600s, and it was used in that sense in the early 1900s to describe homosexuals. They were given that name, they did not take it.

          Like

        7. Isnt that what God was saying? If you don’t like it, don’t shoot the messenger (and I know you like to shhot stuff, so really, don’t!) And if I’m using a straw man, please elaborate.

          Neil if you see the same comment in my wifes name in the moderation queue, please delete it. I didn’t realise she was signed into WordPress when I made that comment. Identity crisis!

          Like

    6. “Paul was backwards or confused.”

      One of the more popular arguments these days is “It was a cultural thing. They didn’t have this issue back then, so it wasn’t addressed.” This argument appears all over the place. I find it extremely odd. Here’s the idea. “God wanted certain things to take place, but the people of the day didn’t have any point of reference, so God made commands based on their point of reference.” Here’s the ramifications. “Homosexual relationships were fine but God condemned them because the culture at the time condemned them. God was against slavery but the culture of the time favored it, so God made commands about slavery. God hates it when husbands are head of household and wives submit, but the culture of the day demanded it, so God commanded it.” Does that make ANY sense at all? That’s like “God doesn’t want me to commit adultery, but I have a weakness for it, so God commands me to commit adultery.” No sense at all! The ONLY way to end up with Paul as either “backward or confused” is to discard the Bible as God’s Word … at which point we have nothing to discuss. It’s your opinion or mine — no one wins.

      Like

      1. Stan,

        I think you need to check your history books. Biblical slavery was nothing like the slavery man has committed in recent history.

        God condemned homesoexual relationships because to allow them meant death to man as a species. He created us to reproduce and men who live with men cannot do that, women who live with women cannot do that, and it wouldn’t lead to anything.

        You assume those people would come together for the purpose of having a child, but how does that happen without the technology today. There has to be a sexual drive for reproduction to happen in humans and last time I checked its rare they have feelings for the opposite sex.

        Biblical slavery was not in the manner you are thinking. Bankrupcy was punishable by death, so slavery was necessary for people to live and pay their debts.

        The Corinthians were sexual diviants and worse they were getting married and reproducing sexual diviants. I think I would have told them not to get married!

        Like

        1. God condemned homesoexual relationships because to allow them meant death to man as a species.

          Not when only five percent–maximum–of people worldwide indentify as homosexual. Sensationalism will get you nowhere.

          Like

        2. You’re correct.

          God condemns the activity because it is a violation of natural law and the moral order, and is an offensive against both His divine nature and our human nature.

          But please, explain to me, using reason alone, how homosexual acts are not immoral? No asserting of your opinion as fact, just reason and logic. “Because it’s just not!” doesn’t really cut it.

          Like

        3. They are not immoral because they do not harm anyone, and they are natural to those involved, regardless of how you feel about it. You seem to believe that this “natural law” is set in stone, as if written by God himself, yet you claim your views against homosexuality do not require the belief in God.

          Like

        4. “They are not immoral because they do not harm anyone, and they are natural to those involved, regardless of how you feel about it.”

          1) We’ve given you evidence that great health harm is caused to the persons involved

          2) Prove that the standard for morality is not causing harm.

          Once again, we are at a juncture where you claim “what I believe is true!!!!”. But you refuse to make an argument for it that is anything other than:
          1) Christians are bad, and;
          2) I said so

          Like

        5. I’ll change my mind when I see a man get pregnant! I mean a real man, not one born half man half woman!

          How is that going to happen without an egg? All you have is a mixture of sperm. Two eggs have no way of fertilizing each other.

          The law is set in stone. When was the last time you saw the sun rise west to east? When have you ever seen a horse give birth to a pig?

          I mean really Ryan what are we talking about here?

          Like

        6. Violation of natural law? Homosexuality is the result of biologicial–natural–processes outside of a person’s control. While it is abnormal, homosexuality is natural.

          But please, explain to me, using reason alone, how homosexual acts are not immoral? No asserting of your opinion as fact, just reason and logic. “Because it’s just not!” doesn’t really cut it.

          Morality is subjective. How can you ask me to apply logic to an inconstant, ambiguous topic? That said, I’d like to reverse your question on you. You seem to know how to objectively argue morality; let’s see you do it!

          Like

        7. “Morality is subjective.”

          Prove it.

          Again, you’re simply asserting you’re opinion and saying “my opinion is true.” You’re entire argument is “I believe x is true, therefore x is true.” A lot of kids believe in Santa, but he ain’t out there.

          Like

        8. Prove it.

          Are you kidding me? It should be self-evident. Different societies have different rules, different laws, different morals. Your idea of morality might differ from an extremist Muslim’s, don’t you think?

          Your Santa analogy is adorable, but flawed. I’m not the one arguing that homosexual is immoral: you are. Therefore, it is you who is on the line to prove me otherwise, because I have more evidence on my side to reinforce my claim than you do. In short, it’s you who’s trying to tell me that Santa Claus exists, not me.

          Like

        9. It isn’t self evident.

          A self evident truth is something that, by its definition, is true.

          For example, a part is never greater than a whole, and the whole is always greater than the part. By the definition of the words the statement is self-evidently true.

          A triangle is not a square. A square is not a triangle.

          It is not self evident, nor is that a serious philosophical position. If your statement is logically true, you can demonstrate it by logic.

          Go ahead. Try it. Really. I’m waiting.

          Let’s be honest, your position is that if you believe it, it must be true, and if you feel something, others are required to feel it too. It’s just the typical soft fascism of weak intellectual arguments.

          Good game, thanks for playing, better luck next time.

          Like

        10. What kind of rambling BS is this?

          LCB, you have posted the most rediculous replies.

          I laughed at the first few of them, but I think now that you might be seriously demented.

          Like

        11. No, Fox it’s a known fact that two men cannot come together and make a baby, just as two women can’t. If they could then I’m sure it would not be an issue.

          There is no sensationalism here only facts. Notice there is not one mention in my post about morality, because it is irrelavent in this instance.

          Like

        12. There are many conditions where a man and a woman cannot come together to have a baby. Does that make their union unnatural?

          Like

        13. No. Because it’s still in line with the intent of God/nature. In addition, through adoption, they can still provide the proper setting of a father and a mother under which a child best thrives.

          Like

        14. God and nature intend people to live together, and love one another outside of the prospects of creating offspring then.

          If you asked me to propose an absolute ideal pair of people to nurture and care for a child, I would pick a perfect mother and a perfect father, so I concede that as the very best situation for a child. But all mothers and fathers are not perfect, and many of the mothers and father combination are far less suited to raise a child then a pair of mothers or a pair of fathers. Studies show that the children end up just as well off. The only objection I think you guys could have is that the child will grow up to respect gay relationships, which is obviously a sign of insanity.

          Like

        15. No we’re staying on topic here.

          There is no morality attached to this post, nor are we talking about parenting. I’ve met some terriffic ‘gay parents’, but the simple fact is it was banned because it is impossible for reproduction to happen.

          God left that to another species. Amoebas are allowed homosexual relationships, because they can ‘be fruitful and multiply’ all by themselves.

          A man and a woman are needed to reproduce a human and that has nothing to do with morality. Its science.

          Like

        16. You’ve met terrific gay parents, yet because you believe in The Bible, you ignore your experience, and go with the book. That’s science alright.

          And Amoebas aren’t gay – they’re asexual.

          Like

        17. Well I do believe that is part of the lesson Paul is giving here. Some people are meant to be single to serve God. Its an ugly occurrance, but it happens.

          I’m not saying that’s the way it is only that could be what Paul meant by some are meant to be single.

          It solves a major issue for me with Paul in him advising people not to marry when the law explicitly says, “Be fruitful and multiply.”

          Like

        18. Hold it right there, LCB. Was jesus, in fact, a person? He did not have a father, because as mizclark would say, you need a sperm and an egg. However, Mary was a virgin, so where did the sperm come from?

          And Jesus may have stayed single, but he did have his “fun” – let’s not forget Mary Magdelene

          Like

        19. Please demonstrate something other than your own opinion that asserts that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdelene. Nothing appears in the historical record or scripture to indicate so.

          Facts please, thank you.

          Like

        20. Hate to break it to you, Mizclark, but members of the same sex have been involved in relationships in the past, and, as far as I am aware, the majority of the human race still procreates, and shows no sign of stopping.

          Homosexuality does not spread from person to person. You don’t seem to understand that there will never be enough gay people to prevent the continuation of the human race. It is an abmormality that occurs in only, what did I say before, five percent of people? And unless someone starts putting some kind of agent in the drinking water, that number will never rise. It’s not like legitimzing homosexual “behavior” will suddenly cause more gay people to magically appear out of nowhere.

          tl;dr, gay people aren’t going to bring about the Apocalypse.

          Like

        21. I never said that!

          I firmly believe there will never be enough gay people to wipe out the species, but you have to ask yourself why?

          Is it because it is against the natural law ( an abnormality) against the cultural norm, or both.

          I firmly believe because it is against the course of human nature. Just because it exists doesn’t change the fact that children cannot be reproduced from this union. Children can only be nurtured and raised..PERIOD.

          My belief in the Bible has nothing to do with good or bad ‘gay parenting’. Maybe I should have said “There is no such thing as gay parenting”. Sexual behavior has nothing to do with the raising and rearing of children.

          We are simply talking about the ability to reproduce and how it relates to natural law…. at least I was.

          Like

        22. I don’t think you can prove that homosexuality, being given tacit approval by state sanction and societal approval wouldn’t result in higher percentages of homosexual behavior within society. It might indeed remain a minority behavior, but I think it logical to assume more people would partake if society at large no longer regarded it as a taboo. I don’t see how it couldn’t. Sex before marriage was seen as a taboo, even though it happened. Now, unfortunately, the norm.

          Look at smoking. There’s a definite societal sense of smoking as a bad thing morally that has gone a long way toward a reduction in smokers. The harmful effects have been known for a long, long time. That wasn’t enough. It took a change of attitude and perspective to really lower the numbers of smoking.

          Conversely, rid a behavior of its immoral reputation, and more people will engage in it. Part of the “ick” factor of homosexuality is cultural.

          Homosexuality has never been proven to be a physical difference. There’s no doubt in my mind that it is a mental thing.

          Like

        23. Don’t kid yourself, Marshall. Sex before marriage has always been the norm. It was just not talked about.

          Like

    7. Neal: I fail to see how my comments can be interpreted as whining, either in tone or content.

      LoneWolfArcher: My age is irrelevant to the validity of the points that I originally made.

      LCB: I made my points on the previous thread, and invited others to counter them. So far neither you or anybody else have done so, preferring as you do to demonstrate your intellectual superiority. Please feel free to refer back to the points that I made, since I am genuinely interested in having a discussion about them, even if none of you are.

      And before I forget, I used the word corollary correctly; as I said, that I am a liar follows readily from the accusation that my statements were untrue. It is not the only thing that might follow from that accusation, as you pointed out; but as I pointed out to you, I never claimed that it was the only thing that might follow from that accusation.

      Now, let’s see if any of you can be bothered to respond to my previously made point, or whether you’ll continue to announce the superiority of your apologetics by accusing me variously of idiotic and untrue arguments, being a child, whining and so forth.

      Like

      1. “hat I am a liar follows readily from the accusation that my statements were untrue.”

        No, it doesn’t

        If A, then B does not logically mean the ‘reverse’ (contrapositive) is true:

        So, If A, then B does NOT equal if B, then A.

        If a person is a liar, their statements are false (a then b), but if a person’s statements are false it does not mean they are a liar (a then b doesn’t mean b then a).

        All cats are fuzzy.
        That animal is fuzzy.
        Therefore it is a cat. See the logical error? That’s the same error you’re making.

        I’m glad to discuss moral issues with you after you have nailed down the very basics of critical thinking.

        Like

        1. I made an entirely reasonable assertion in the previous thread, and explained why I believe that assertion to be true. I’m not that interested in lessons in semantics, nor in being lectured in logic – neither of which do I require, the arrogant presumptions on display here notwithstanding. What I am interested in is any of you – any of you, I don’t really care who – engaging in civil discussion to establish how I might be mistaken in that initial assertion.

          So far I’ve been disappointed and, from the experience so far, it seems likely that disappointment can only increase. This has been my experience on every single Christian apologetics blog that I’ve ever commented at, but I keep trying because I want to understand how you think and what you believe. I want to be challenged in my own beliefs, but all I receive is patronising comments and abuse. If you want to engage, fine; if not, then why do you even bother typing?

          Like

        2. When you insist things are true (that you have been called a liar) when simple logic and reason proves them false, you are setting yourself up for disappointment that goes far beyond what you’ll find on blogs.

          You obviously aren’t interested in shouting your own opinion, insisting it’s the truth, and denying anything anyone says otherwise. But we figured that out already. It was nice of you to confirm that, though.

          Until you can acknowledge basic logical things– such as you being flat wrong in regards to your baseless accusation, how can you hope for civilized discussion? But really, go ahead and insist you are right in the face of clear and obvious facts that show otherwise. That totally helps your argument.

          Civilized discourse is based on logic and reason, and you have only demonstrated that you don’t understand either.

          I pray that God may help you, because logic and reason clearly can not. Good day, sir.

          Like

        3. Okay, one last spin. You can have more than one corollary to a statement, and there are two corollaries to the accusation that my statements are untrue:

          1. That I am lying.
          2. That I am mistaken.

          So my accusation that LoneWolfArcher accused me of lying is not baseless, and he could clear this up immediately by simply telling me that he believes that I am mistaken, not lying. So far has has not done so. He also called my arguments “dumb” and “idiotic” and it seems strange, given your demands for “logic” and “reason”, that you don’t seem so worried by that. Who knows why fixated on a single one of my frankly incidental statements to the exclusion of everything else?

          To recap: I post a comment, and am told it is untrue, idiotic and dumb; the comments thread is closed before anybody replies reasonably to that comment. I support the blog owners decision, but express my disappointment that nobody replied, and my concern that my arguments were called untrue, idiotic and dumb without any explanation provided. For making that concern known, I receive further snide remarks – I must be very young, I must need remedial lessons in logic, I live in a “fantasy world” – and still nobody addresses the original comment.

          If you do want to address the original comment, please go ahead. Here’s a link to it: <a href="Okay, one last spin. You can have more than one corollary to a statement, and there are two corollaries to the accusation that my statements are untrue:

          1. That I am lying.
          2. That I am mistaken.

          So my accusation that LoneWolfArcher accused me of lying is not baseless, and he could clear this up immediately by simply telling me that he believes that I am mistaken, not lying. So far has has not done so. He also called my arguments "dumb" and "idiotic" and it seems strange, given your demands for "logic" and "reason", that you don't seem so worried by that. Who knows why fixated on a single one of my frankly incidental statements to the exclusion of everything else?

          To recap: I post a comment, and am told it is untrue, idiotic and dumb; the comments thread is closed before anybody replies reasonably to that comment. I support the blog owners decision, but express my disappointment that nobody replied, and my concern that my arguments were called untrue, idiotic and dumb without any explanation provided. For making that concern known, I receive further snide remarks – I must be very young, I must need remedial lessons in logic, I live in a "fantasy world" – and still nobody addresses the original comment.

          If you do want to address the original comment, please go ahead. Here's a link to it: Okay, one last spin. You can have more than one corollary to a statement, and there are two corollaries to the accusation that my statements are untrue:

          1. That I am lying.
          2. That I am mistaken.

          So my accusation that LoneWolfArcher accused me of lying is not baseless, and he could clear this up immediately by simply telling me that he believes that I am mistaken, not lying. So far has has not done so. He also called my arguments “dumb” and “idiotic” and it seems strange, given your demands for “logic” and “reason”, that you don’t seem so worried by that. Who knows why fixated on a single one of my frankly incidental statements to the exclusion of everything else?

          To recap: I post a comment, and am told it is untrue, idiotic and dumb; the comments thread is closed before anybody replies reasonably to that comment. I support the blog owners decision, but express my disappointment that nobody replied, and my concern that my arguments were called untrue, idiotic and dumb without any explanation provided. For making that concern known, I receive further snide remarks – I must be very young, I must need remedial lessons in logic, I live in a “fantasy world” – and still nobody addresses the original comment.

          If you do want to address the original comment, please go ahead: http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/confronting-fake-concerns-about-religion-in-the-public-square/#comment-33141. Have at it, sir!

          Like

        4. I can’t read your post. I can’t tell what’s supposed to be there and what’s not. The HTML tags are messed up, etc.

          This post seems as confused as your logic.

          Just admit you were wrong man, it’s not that big of a deal.

          Like

        5. I have no idea what happened with that post, as I don’t recall including html tags in it. However it’s very easy to work out how the post is supposed to be structured; the body of the text is repeated once, and the link to my original comment is given at the end of the second repetition of the text. I have no problem admitting I’m wrong, but the post above explains a) why I don’t think I’m wrong and b) why this point is entirely incidental to the main discussion.

          Literally every time I try to engage Christians in arguments on these blogs this happens: you fixate on an incidental, usually semantic point, and then use that to avoid engaging in discussion. Whether it’s deliberate or not, I have no idea, but I’m happy to leave the record of this discussion. At every point, I’ve requested that you engage with my substantial points and not the trivial, and at every point you’ve refused, usually accompanied by either mild abuse or patronising comments. If you want that to be the lasting testament to your faith, that’s fine by me.

          I’ll ask one more time: please respond to my original comments, as I am genuinely interested to know your views.

          Like

        6. It’s neither incidental nor semantic.

          You have made a truth claim.

          I have demonstrated using a logical syllogism, that your truth claim is false. I have given other evidence as well.

          And yet you continue insisting that everyone is wrong and you are right.

          If this is happening EVERY TIME, literally, maybe it is you and NOT everyone else everywhere else? Is that at all possible?

          We engage in substantial points, you reply by personally attacking us, and we demonstrate with logic and reason alone that your personal attack was unjustified. Instead of doing the intellectually correct thing of admitting you were wrong and apologizing and moving on, you instead forget the first rule of holes:

          when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

          You were wrong dude, just apologize and let’s move on. But the fact remains, you were wrong, and it was demonstrated to you clearly. If your idea of dialog is to never admit you were wrong whenever there is evidence that shows otherwise, you’re not interested in dialog. You’re interested in tyranny.

          Like

        7. This is interesting. You say: We engage in substantial points, you reply by personally attacking us, and we demonstrate with logic and reason alone that your personal attack was unjustified. We could debate whether my comprehension of the word corollary is a substantial point in a discussion about gay marriage, but that won’t get us anywhere. Your persecution complex is more interesting – where exactly did I personally attack you?

          So, one last time: a statement may have more than one corollary. One corollary of the statement “Merkur’s argument is untrue” is that Merkur is lying. Another corollary is that Merkur is mistaken, and I invite you to show that I am mistaken in my original argument. I believe that this is around the fifth time I have requested that you engage with my original point.

          And, if your definition of tyranny is that somebody is not interested in dialog, then you’re likely to be more disappointed by real life than I could ever be. Since I keep repeating that I’m interested in dialog, and you claim that I’m not interested in dialog, are you now accusing me of lying? This gets better and better.

          Like

    8. I feel strongly that the various rights (and responsibilities) that accrue to married couples should also apply to homosexual couples who are prepared to make the same long-term committment to each other that married couples do.

      I’m referring to rights concerning such things as inheritance, immigration issues, healthcare etc.

      It doesn’t have to be called marriage, or celebrated in a church. That would actually be stupid. Why would you even think of inviting God into your union, when the god you’re referring to clearly doesn’t want anything to do with it?

      Like

        1. Why is that?

          I’m asking you to speculate here, of course. “You” are not “them” but I’m always interested in people’s motivations, and I’m genuinely interested in your opinion of what those motivations might be.

          Like

        1. Rights are a social construct, and may change over time. We can only measure them by what’s gone before, ie. they are relative.

          Please answer this: Does every person who has ever existed on earth, from the time of the first humans (whenever that was) deserve the right to be free of ownership by another human?

          A simple yes or no will suffice.

          Like

        2. If they are a social construct then they are not binding or real, just subjective.

          Society has decided there is no homosexual marriage. Therefore there is no homosexual marriage, it simply doesn’t exist.

          Good game, thanks for playing, better luck next time.

          Like

        3. If rights are a social contract, then no, no one deserves the right to be free.

          All social contract means is right makes right.

          When the people in power wanted slavery, it was morally acceptable. When the people in power decided no slavery, it was no longer morally acceptable.

          Like

        4. Ok, but I’m more interested in what you believe is morally acceptable; after all, you’re the one who keeps insisting we reveal the origin of these things called rights.

          Like

        5. “Does every person who has ever existed on earth, from the time of the first humans (whenever that was) deserve the right to be free of ownership by another human?”

          Yes. By virtue of their being human.

          Like

        6. Perception of slavery has changed over time.

          The practice is still widespread on Earth, fwiw.

          However, humans always and everywhere have had the right to be free.

          Having rights does not been those rights are observed.

          But, if rights are only a social contract this is a moot point.

          Are you conceding that morality is an objective reality that can be known through the use of reason?

          Like

        7. Yes. By virtue of their being human

          But we’ve only had that perception for the last 200 years or so. 2000 years ago it was morally acceptable, and the Bible doesn’t even condemn it. If freedom was a right that’s existed forever, decreed by God, don’t you think that might have been mentioned somewhere. The Bible has a lot to say about the treatment of slaves, mostly to its credit, but nowhere does it say that one person owning another is fundamentally wrong.

          Homosexual love is now becoming morally acceptable. I don’t expect you to like it, but it’s happening, and the Bible is being left behind.

          Like

        8. If you don’t like the natural consequences of a social contract theory of rights you are, of course, free to reject it. I would advise doing so, as it’s pretty much untenable.

          Like

        9. You guys should know by now that using the words “rights” and “morals” with LCB is a death trap. You won’t win he argument, because LCB has a direct phone line to God and is the authority on what rights we have and which of our activities are moral. If you disagree, you are not only wrong, but illogical. The burden of proof, by his definition, lies with you in all cases, unless of course you agree with him.

          Don’t bother.

          Like

        10. Ryan,

          Just because you’re unable to provide anything other than emotional arguments for your positions doesn’t mean the same is true of others. I have spent considerable time discussing morals rights and their origins with you, but your response every time is:

          1) That’s not my opinion, and;
          2) The bible! You believe in it! You don’t count.

          We’ve reached the point where I’ve systematically and logically debunked your positions, to which you respond by repeating them louder with a little anti-religious bigotry laced in.

          At this point it’s clear that you are uninterested in logical and rational discourse, because that would mean admitting some of your positions are wrong and ill informed.

          Like

        11. Nice try. You’ve debunked very little if anything. You are very well read in philosophy, yet all of the sources you cite are on one side of the spectrum – the side that fits in with your belief in God. There are just as many philosophers on the other side of the spectrum with just as much logic and reason to back them up. The problem is that since we are speculating on the existence of the supernatural, the proofs are fuzzy. I suppose you think the Bertrand Russell is a fool, or at least intellectually inferior to you.

          Enough with the “bigotry” garbage. The fact that you are religious is an intellectual choice, and I am free to bring it up when arguing with you about intellectual conclusions that arise from said choice.

          I have never heard you say you might be wrong. I have never heard you say you are unsure of anything. These are signs of dogmatic thought and close-mindedness.

          Like

        12. Ryan,

          I’ve never said I’m wrong b/c you have yet to provide any arguments that aren’t the following:

          I feel x, therefore x is true.

          Like

        13. I use the word “feel” all the time, out of respect for those that have opposing viewpoints. I say “I feel that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals”, but it’s not because I have an emotional need to hand out rights. It’s because they deserve them as much as we do.

          Here’s a logical argument for the rights of homosexuals to marry and adopt. Feel free to apply some of your moral higher ground.

          a) Heterosexuals are born with the desire, and emotional need for companionship with the opposite sex.
          b) Homosexuals are born with the desire, and emotional need for companionship with the same sex.
          c) Human beings have the right for mutual companionship with whomever they choose.
          d) We grant heterosexuals the right to register their relationship legally, and we require nothing but mutual consent for this legal relationship to exist. There is no requirement for the couple to intend to raise a family. There is no requirement for the couple to do anything that requires they be opposite sex.
          e) We allow heterosexuals to adopt a child, provided they can show that their family is stable, their home and financial status is adequate, and they can provide a situation where a child’s emotional, educational, and physical needs are met.
          f) If a homosexual couple can show that their relationship satisfies all the requirements in step D, they should be allowed to marry.
          g) If a homosexual couple can provide all of the requirements in step E, they should be allowed to raise a child through adoption.

          Go ahead, tell me I’m an idiot.

          Like

        14. I don’t buy point “b” at all, and I don’t believe there’s ever been any definitive proof of it. I believe that the desire comes somewhere after birth.

          d) We don’t require the desire for raising a family, but the union stands ready to do so by virtue of their opposite sexes. Ideally, marriage is when sex is supposed to take place, not before. It is procreation that is the heart of all of it. It is illogical and impractical legally to monitor which hetero (I hope no one is offended by using that abbreviation) couple procreates and which doesn’t. The ideal is the point.

          The reason homosex couples demand the right to marry has more to do with changing attitudes. Most, if not all of the legal aspects can be handled without a marriage license.

          Allowing homosex couples to adopt is NOT good for the kids. I don’t believe objective studies exist to prove otherwise. I concede that as a last resort, it might help a kid to have ANY kind of home in certain situations. But rather than put them in a questionable situation, I’d rather see better orphanages.

          Like

        15. Marty, (that’s your new nickname)

          Of course you don’t buy point B – homosexuals just want to be different right? Do some research on twin studies and get back to me. Either way, even if you think that homosexuality is a choice, so is religion, and freedom of religion is protected under the law.

          Your point on d doesn’t make any sense. We don’t require that people marry an ideal partner.

          Most, if not all of the legal aspects can be handled without a marriage license.

          You’re right, al the benefits can be had in most states without a marriage license. I can use the same argument to say that heterosexual couples shouldn’t marry due to the waste of paperwork.

          Allowing homosex couples to adopt is NOT good for the kids. I don’t believe objective studies exist to prove otherwise

          Here’s one from the American Academy of Pediatrics

          Here’s another from the American Psychological Association

          I’d rather see better orphanages

          nice

          Like

    9. Ryan writes:

      b) Homosexuals are born with the desire, and emotional need for companionship with the same sex.

      I. You have not proven this statement is true. I do not concede that the statement is true. Building an argument on an unproven statement that is not a self-evident truth (which are truths that are true by their definition, a whole is always greater than a part, a part is always lesser than the whole, by definition the statement is true) is a house of cards. It works when we can agree on the foundation, but on this we do not agree.

      Ryan writes,

      c) Human beings have the right for mutual companionship with whomever they choose.

      I. You have not proven this statement to be true. You have asserted it as true without proof. It is not self-evidently true.
      II. Under the definitions you have previously given of rights this is not true. Collective human wisdom of the centuries would disagree. Many societies throughout history would disagree. Evolutionarily you can not demonstrate that we are ‘owed’ this.
      III. By your own standards this is not true.

      Ryan writes,

      d) We grant heterosexuals the right to register their relationship legally, and we require nothing but mutual consent for this legal relationship to exist. There is no requirement for the couple to intend to raise a family. There is no requirement for the couple to do anything that requires they be opposite sex.

      I. The first reason that marriage is given preferential treatment under the law is because the family unit has traditionally served as the foundation of society
      II. The second reason that marriage is given preferential treatment under the law is because, until just recently in history, sex outside of marriage was viewed as morally wrong. The law reflected the moral belief on this matter. This was accompanied by legal prohibitions against any form of sex outside of marriage.
      III. We do, however, require that they infact be opposite sex. The definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman.
      III. The reason that something is done is very important. Your statement ignores the reason for the laws, historical and moral.

      Ryan writes,

      e) We allow heterosexuals to adopt a child, provided they can show that their family is stable, their home and financial status is adequate, and they can provide a situation where a child’s emotional, educational, and physical needs are met.

      I. Again. Why? The reason is because the traditional family unit is the foundation of society.

      Ryan writes,

      f) If a homosexual couple can show that their relationship satisfies all the requirements in step D, they should be allowed to marry.

      I. I agree. One of those requirements is that the marriage is between a man and a woman. They remain at all times free to engage in a marriage. The definition of marriage is that it exists between a man and a woman.
      II. Once again you have engaged in begging the question. The argument you are trying to make is “Marriage isn’t between a man and woman” you then build further arguments on the presumption that “marriage isn’t between a man and a woman.”
      III. You have yet to make an argument that “marriage isn’t between a man and a woman.” That is what I am challenging you to do, make an argument for changing the definition of marriage from man and woman to something else.
      IV. You use the word “allow.” Marriage is not something that is being “denied” to a certain group of people, because the state doesn’t decide what marriage is and is not. The definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman.
      V. You use the word “should” and make a moral claim. Previously ou have defined morality as a purely evolutionary product. Please demonstrate how changing the definition of a word to satisfy the desire of a small group of individuals in one part of the world meets a moral obligation that was evolved.

      Ryan writes,

      g) If a homosexual couple can provide all of the requirements in step E, they should be allowed to raise a child through adoption.

      I. One of those requirements is that the married couple be a man and woman. If they are in a homosexual relationship they are not married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.
      II. See my comments on the above item, since they almost all apply here as well.

      CONCLUSION:

      I. You have thrown out many red herrings
      II. You have yet to make a direct argument “The definition of the word marriage should be changed because .”
      III. We are asking you, please make an argument “The definition of the word marriage should be changed because “

      Like

      1. Yeah, that’s exactly what I thought you would say. If you would spend more time listening to what I’m trying to say,. and less time picking it apart with rules of logic that do not apply, you might start to understand my perspective.

        So, you don’t believe that homosexuals are born with different desires than the rest of us? Have you ever discussed that with a gay person, or did you logically deduce that?

        Like

        1. If you would spend more time listening to what I’m trying to say,. and less time picking it apart with rules of logic that do not apply

          I’m glad we’ve gotten to the bottom of this matter. I agree. The rules of logic do not seem to apply to your position. It is illogical and unreasonable.

          Like

        2. When you make a decision yourself, do you provide yourself a proof before choosing the correct path? Does life boil down to that for you? You use the tools of logic in these conversations as if you have mastered them. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nail.

          Do you really think that I am 100% wrong in every thought that I tried to articulate?

          Unless you are willing to apply logic and logic alone to your choice of a partner in life, then you have no right to apply logic and logic alone to determining who another person should share his life with.

          Put your logic aside and answer me yourself.

          Like

        3. Your arguments are always so circular and self-serving.

          No one cares whom another chooses for a partner, just don’t try to force the rest of us to accept it. Is that so difficult?

          Like

        4. Don’t flatter yourself – nobody cares whether or not YOU accept their relationship. It’s the laws they care about. You are free to be a bigot if you like.

          Your arguments are always so circular and self-serving.

          Are yours are adorable.

          Like

        5. It’s getting difficult to take you at your word that your atheism is based on reasonable and logical conclusions when you are now demanding that I put logic aside to have discussions with you.

          Are you reading your own words? You are now demanding people set aside logic.

          Instead of all these mental gymnastics to try and justify immorality, which must be exhausting, just admit that your position is illogical and return to Christ.

          It might not be fashionable, it might go against popular sentiments, it might even be unpopular. But at least you would finally have the Truth.

          Like

        6. Your logic is fallible, that’s why I’m asking you to put it aside.

          My mental gymnastics are an attempt to get my point across to a person who has tunnel vision. I don’t think you have a grain of interest in how I’ve come to believe what I believe, since you’ve done nothing but ridicule my conclusions.

          I won’t trouble you with my beliefs again.

          Like

      2. The legal definition of marriage should be changed because it no longer meets the social requirements for which it was constructed.

        Your specific religious definition of marriage can remain the same, of course, and you should be to free to observe it without prejudice.

        Like

        1. Does it require a national referendum to change other legal definitions? If not, then why do you believe this specific issue requires a national referendum?

          Like

        2. Name one what? Legal definition that doesn’t require a national referendum? Voting eligibility. The definition of “under age” across various aspects of law. Categorisation of drugs. These are the sorts of things that I’m thinking of. What are you thinking of?

          Like

        3. Yes, they are subject to change without a vote. Did women get the right to vote with a referendum? How about non-white men? How about the change in age from 21 to 18?

          Tyranny of the masses. Look it up.

          Like

        4. None of them are constitutionally defined terms, and neither is marriage. All of them are subject to change without a referendum, and so is marriage. So I’m not sure what your point is, unless you’re agreeing with me.

          Like

        5. Actually, voting eligibility in some senses is constitutionally defined – but the constitution has been amended repeatedly
          to extend voting rights. Without a referendum.

          Like

        6. It probably will. Abortion rights took a long time as well, and they happened. Good changes are good regardless of how long they take. Evil changes are evil regardless of how long they take. Illogical changes are illogical regardless of how long they take.

          Like

        7. I take the stance that when people are allowed to make free decisions, the consequences of those decisions contributes to the overall education of the next generation, and that is what advances society. The fact that gays are treated better now than they were even 20 years ago is a positive thing, and they will more equal with the next generation. You guys are sort of tied to the Biblical prophesy that the world will self destruct, so this “acceptance of gays” thing can be used as an example of that for those that think it is immoral.

          I find it funny that I’m talking about this stuff with you guys. I’m just back from coffee with a dear friend of mine. He is gay, and one of the most impeccably moral people I know.I couldn’t not imagine tarnishing his character with what he does in his bedroom, and with whom.

          Like

        8. You guys are sort of tied to the Biblical prophesy that the world will self destruct

          The stereotypes never end. The world already destructed in the sense of sin entering in.

          I’m just back from coffee with a dear friend of mine. He is gay

          We have friends who are gay, commit adultery, etc. as well. We’re all sinners in need of a Savior, it is just that some people are self-righteous (i.e., they think they are righteous enough on their own — even though they concede to violating their own made-up code of righteousness).

          They are also spectacularly judgmental, and feel that they are the arbiters of whom has perfect morality and doesn’t need a Savior.

          Like

        9. A very dear friend of mine was gay. Great guy. Loved by many for his wit, charm, and numerous other qualities. That he engaged in homsexual behavior was wrong and immoral.

          At the same time, I’ve known other people who were equally endearing and each of them engaged in activities that were sinful and/or immoral. Great people, loved by many. One guy sold cocaine. Another whored around. One chick was lazy and lost jobs rountinely.

          The point here is that aside from one or two shortcomings, each of these people were/are wonderful people. We all have our shortcomings and being great people doesn’t lessen the sinfulness of our sinful behaviors.

          BTW, the dear friend of mine who was gay had a daughter. He chose the lifestyle because he didn’t feel he fit in anywhere. He wasn’t comfortable anywhere. He died of AIDS. I hope he’s comfortable now. I wasn’t strong enough in my faith to confront him about his as he got sicker and sicker. What a terrible and unnecessary loss.

          Everyone craves companionship. It’s the companionship that is the point. How that craving manifests determines the mental health of the individual. It’s abnormal to crave sexual companionship with a member of the same sex.

          Let me correct that: How that craving manifests determines the moral health of the individual. As I said, my friend chose the lifestyle searching for something he thought he was lacking. A stronger moral foundation might have saved him from his untimely end. Likely would have.

          BTW, the APA is rife with homosexual activists itself. Not an objective group as regards homosexuality. That twins study Ryan brought up is not definitive, either. There are no such definitive studies, sorry to say.

          Like

        10. Great points, Marshall. Of course people need companionship. The gay lobby just trades on the myth that sex makes the relationship better.

          Like

        11. Is it your opinion that every person, with a completely good life free of worries, would choose companionship with the opposite sex when presented with both opportunities?

          What is your explanation for this friend of mine I mentioned. He used to be my boss. He has tons of money (he was actually in town to sell “one” of his downtown apartments), he has a job he absolutely loves. He has a wonderful big family that accepts him completely. He has a million friends. He is attractive to women as well. He’s in great shape, and he’s extremely well educated.

          So, your opinion is that this guy is ill? His homosexuality was caused by what? Not fitting in? I’ll tell you why he’s gay. He likes dudes. That’s why he’s gay. His brain is wired in such a way that he is attracted to other men. He couldn’t change that if he wanted to.

          Like

        12. Just because people have a predisposition to a certain behavior, regardless of the root cause, does not make it moral. God’s view — which is what this post way about, btw, couldn’t be more clear.

          Feel free to point out where my biblical analysis is wrong. Whether you agree with the Bible or whether you have a friend who is happy in his sin is completely irrelevant to this post.

          Like

        13. Just because people have a predisposition to a certain behavior, regardless of the root cause, does not make it moral

          No, it doesn’t, but it does make it natural, something that is denied by most people here. The fact that these desires are natural, and occur in nature, is really important. To tell a person that he is acting immorally when he is only doing what comes naturally, and is not hurting anyone, including himself, is baseless. No man or woman has a duty to procreate.

          Unless of course the Bible stands on it’s own, apart from science, and apart from evidence. What I’m trying to say is that I understand why you think homosexuality is immoral, given your belief in the Bible. But don’t try to tell me it comes from somewhere else, or is valid outside the religious worldview.

          Like

        14. “No, it doesn’t, but it does make it natural,”

          I didn’t realize pedophilia was natural. I look forward to your robust defense of it, since natural=evolved=good. Unless you’re now going to pick and choose which natural desires are okay and socially acceptable and which ones aren’t?

          First rule of holes, Ryan. First rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

          Like

        15. LCB, you are not nearly as smart as I once thought you were. Your arguments are weak, and your fallacies abundant.

          You should be absolutely ashamed about your pedophilia straw man argument. Did you read what I wrote, or do you just skim it, leaving out the inconvenient parts? I said that which is natural is good until shown to be harmful.

          When have I ever made a connection between evolved and good? There is no connection. Evolved = better suited to survive, or help one’s family survive. Sometimes “more evolved” means better suited to murder, cheat, and steal ones way to more food. That’s nature.

          You don’t make arguments anymore. You write as though you are sitting on a throne, ridiculing those that are not as enlightened. You are a terrible advocate for the Christian faith.

          Like

        16. And of course you miss the point of the pedophilia argument (pro-gay advocates are mighty defensive that way — wonder why?). He didn’t say gays were all pedophiles. It is just that your logic supports pedophilia as well

          Like

        17. No, it doesn’t, but it does make it natural, something that is denied by most people here.

          Natural doesn’t equal moral, either. And you haven’t proved that it is natural.

          Unless of course the Bible stands on it’s own, apart from science, and apart from evidence.

          1. You are wrong. Atheists have to play the “Bible writers got lucky” game when they were right about the beginning of the universe and the number of stars, among other things. 2. I told you to stay on topic. Strike two.

          To tell a person that he is acting immorally when he is only doing what comes naturally, and is not hurting anyone, including himself, is baseless.

          That is illogical. You are one of the most judgmental people I’ve come across, always railing against those who dare judge homosexual behavior to be wrong. Quite hypocritical of you, unless you are saying how baseless it is of you to judge us. We aren’t hurting anyone. We’re just doing what comes naturally and pointing out the sin of homosexual behavior.

          But don’t try to tell me it comes from somewhere else, or is valid outside the religious worldview.

          Yeah, I’ve only explained that about 10 times to you.

          Last chance. Stay on topic. I’m not kidding.

          Like

        18. I’m sorry, where in the Bible does it say how many stars there are, other than that there are a lot of them, which I knew at the age of 5, simply by looking upwards at night?

          Homosexuality occurs in nature, and it occurs everywhere at about the same rate. That is pretty scientific evidence that it is a natural occurrence. It also occurs in the same percentages in societies that approve of it, and societies that do not. The incidents of people changing between the two is almost non-existent outside of the religious community.

          We aren’t hurting anyone. We’re just doing what comes naturally and pointing out the sin of homosexual behavior.

          You’ve hurt a lot of people. I know some of them, and there’s one that I used to know because of it.

          If I’m the most judgmental person you’ve met, you need to get out more, and you need to read my comments a little more thoughtfully. I’m not the one here accusing everyone of sinning.

          And lastly, I really am sorry for being off-topic. I know I am, and I feel bad about it, but there are a group of people here talking about the same thing, and you’re only saying it to me. I understand if you kick me out of here, and maybe it’s for the best.

          Like

        19. I’m sorry, where in the Bible does it say how many stars there are, other than that there are a lot of them, which I knew at the age of 5, simply by looking upwards at night?

          The ancients generally thought there were 1,100 or so. The author of Genesis indicated that the number was more like the grains of sand in the sea (i.e., a few more than 1,100). Just another lucky guess.

          Homosexuality occurs in nature, and it occurs everywhere at about the same rate.

          So. What. So does killing your mate, eating children, etc. Dogs will hump male dogs, female dogs, your leg, your end table, etc. Super standard of morality there. Civilization is largely about not doing what comes natural.

          You’ve hurt a lot of people. I know some of them, and there’s one that I used to know because of it.

          By that logic you are hurting the Christians here.

          And lastly, I really am sorry for being off-topic.

          If you are sorry, there is a simple solution: Stay on topic.

          Like

        20. Absolutely he’s ill. Unfortunately, in this day and age, fewer people are around to tell him so. Worse yet, if he’s as successful as you say, it’s even less likely that anyone would risk the loss of his friendship to tell him what he might no longer want to hear.

          Of course he’s ill. He is attracted to men. That’s not normal. It is NOT how he was created or he would have been created female.

          It hardly matters what caused his condition, only that his condition exists within him and is in need of treatment. Yeah, his brain is wired that way. Did you know that the brain re-wires all the time? Did you know that if you lost your favored arm that your brain would re-wire until your other arm worked as well? Did you know that if you suffered severe trauma to the brain and lost the ability to speak, your brain would re-wire until you could speak again (not always, of course, but it happens all the time).

          Homosexuality is nothing more than a severe paradigm waiting to be shifted. Not much different from a guy who digs blondes or oriental chicks, and then, for reasons not always understood, becomes more attracted to redheads or black chicks. You are aware that some people have a real hatred of other races. They are stuck in a paradigm that is, for some, hard to shift. But others have come to realize that race doesn’t matter.

          The desire to do the wrong thing can be very strong and often seems natural. It seems natural to take what you want regardless of who really owns it. It seems natural to smack the piss out of some wise-guy who annoys. It seems natural to some to inflate their experiences so as to seem more important or cool.

          It is only in sexual matters that people insist they are beyond changing, that they don’t even need to change, that their personal desires and compulsions are just fine because, hey, they are wonderful people otherwise.

          Like

        21. Of course he’s ill. He is attracted to men. That’s not normal. It is NOT how he was created or he would have been created female.

          I have a “biology” on the phone? Saying something about you being hilariously wrong?

          Like

        22. It doesn’t take a diploma to understand the obvious, Fox. Though it might to try to explain away the obvious. By whatever means you choose to believe, we are created male and female for a purpose. For one to act contrary to that purpose is not normal at all.

          Nor is it natural. That it might happen in nature is hardly justification for humans to concede to it. It only means that that abnormality occurs amongst the animal kingdom as well, if indeed it actually does.

          also, for Ryan, that a society allows a behavior doesn’t mean that there is widespread approval by those who reject the behavior. In addition, I’d say it is a tough job to determine who would or wouldn’t be influenced should there be a society totally ambiguous about the issue. I don’t think you can point to any society like that.

          Like

        23. So you agree that it doesn’t require a national referendum to change legal definitions, not even constitutionally defined ones.

          That being the case, then on what basis are you arguing that this specific issue requires a national referendum?

          Like

        24. I was speaking more state-to-state. Regardless, good luck on either way! -thumbs up-

          P.S. I am done responding to you merkur. You are hear to argue for argue state. May you have nice life.

          Like

        25. LWA, think about what you are saying. Referendums on individual rights are not fair to anyone. Ever heard of the “tyranny of the masses”?

          Given that you are a devout Christian, let’s suppose for a moment that Christianity was not very popular. Let’s say, less than 3% of people are Christian in the United States, and the large majority of the population was Muslim. Would you think it would be okay to have a referendum to abolish Christianity?

          Like

        26. Good for you. I admire your convictions, but you didn’t answer the question. Do you think that a referendum should take place?

          Like

      3. This is interesting. Ryan wrote:

        b) Homosexuals are born with the desire, and emotional need for companionship with the same sex.

        to which LCB replied:

        I. You have not proven this statement is true. I do not concede that the statement is true.

        If you don’t believe this statement is true, do you have an alternative explanation for why homosexuals form lasting relationships with each other to such an extent that they wish to validate those relationships publicly through the institution of marriage?

        Like

        1. He is making the case. The burden of intellectual proof is on the claimant. He has yet to put forth a clear logical argument for his case, merely making assertions of opinion and emotion.

          I do have an alternative explanation. The will to power. Pick up a copy of Nietzsche’s “The Will to Power.” Read specifically the chapter called “The Will to Power as Society and Individual.”

          Like

        2. Presumably we can agree that humans are born with a need for companionship, based purely on the evidence that we see around, if nothing else. Agreeing that, presumably we can also agree that homosexuals – being human – possess this need for companionship.

          The point of contention is then solely whether homosexuals feel the need for companionship with those of the same sex, or those of the opposite sex. Homosexuals tell us – through word and deed – that they feel the need for companionship with those of the same sex.

          Ryan’s contention is simply the most obvious explanation based on easily available evidence – that homosexuals are telling the truth and acting in accordance with their natures. Since you dispute that, I am asking what evidence you have that acts against his statement.

          Your argument – as best I can understand it from the oblique reference to Nietzsche – is that homosexuals are attempting to impose their will on the rest of society for personal gain. If my understanding is correct, then your argument faces two main problems.

          1. If you accept Nietzsche’s theory, then presumably your own attempts to block gay marriage are also a manifestation of the will to power. If you do not accept Nietzsche’s theory, then how can you offer it as an explanation for the behaviour of others, but not of your own?

          2. If your argument is true, then you acknowledge that it is their will that they have marriage rights. However, while your argument might explain why they are trying to impose that will on others, it does not answer the question of where that particular desire comes from in the first place.

          Like

        3. What’s to respond to?

          You’re trying to play a clever word game and it isn’t that cleve, in the mean time you don’t respond to any of my objections, nor do you try to advance a real argument, nor do you have any idea about Nietzsche outside of what is on Wiki.

          Since you’ve demonstrated elsewhere that you don’t understand the meaning of the words you use, and refuse to admit that you are incorrect when clear evidence is given to you, I simply don’t take you or your arguments seriously.

          So, there won’t be a response. What’s to respond to respond to? There is no argument, just a word game.

          Like

        4. I was initially interested in hearing the basis of your objection to the statement that “Homosexuals are born with the desire, and emotional need for companionship with the same sex.” You responded that Ryan “has yet to put forth a clear logical argument for his case”. I then put forward a clear logical argument for his case which Ryan appears to agree with. There is no word game, clever or otherwise in any of my comments on this point; I am simply asking you to present the evidence that provides the basis for your disagreement with Ryan.

          It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that saying “I do have an alternative explanation. The will to power” does not by itself actually constitute an explanation. I am struggling to see how your adoption of Nietzschean philosophy does anything other than damage your own case – given Nietzsche’s views about the role of religion in society – but I would appreciate it if you could explain my error in interpreting the concept and clarify what you meant by your statement.

          p.s. Your refusal to address this specific argument on the basis of your opinion of me looks a lot like genetic fallacy. However since your original dispute was with Ryan, and Ryan appears to agree with my points, you could consider this an extension of his argument and answer it on that basis.

          Like

        5. You did not put forth a clear logical argument.

          You changed around what I said till it said something different, then went from there and tried to refute an objection I never made.

          Those are word games. You’re jousting windmills.

          When you’re ready to make actual arguments, and not play word games, I’ll be waiting. You may use pretty prose, but you aren’t actually saying anything of substance.

          Like

        6. It seems fairly clear that no matter what I write, you’ll find
          some terrible personal flaw in it that prohibits you from
          responding. I envy you your sense of superiority; it must
          be quite wonderful to go through life undisturbed by
          feeble-minded incompetents such as I. I’ll keep posting comments, and I look forward to hearing a whole range of wonderful excuses as to why you won’t deign to engage me in discussion.

          Like

        7. You may find it helpful to consult my earlier post where I pointed out that, when people point out the flaws in your arguments, you immediately start personal attacks.

          I must be Nostradamus, because my prediction seems to have come true.

          Like

    10. Hey – I’ve been busy moving houses so I didn’t even read many comments on this one. Based on the ones I scanned it looks like the closed thread just moved over here, which is kind of irritating.

      BTW, I’ve closed comments on a grand total of two (2) threads out of 1,083 posts. The first one was when a group of Catholics intent on defending Mary against my assertion that she couldn’t save anyone kept repeating themselves and it got tiresome.

      The second was last week, which rocketed the total number of posts closed due to repetitive and illogical pro-oxymoronic “same sex marriage” comments all the way up to one (1). So anyone complaining about conversation being shut down, free speech rights, etc. should stop it. Really, just stay on topic and you’ll be fine.

      Kudos to those who actually commented about the original post.

      Like

        1. Mary would be opposed to same sex marriage.

          Sorry – that cracked me up!

          Daughter looks up from TV: “What?”

          Me: “Nothing.” (snicker)

          I haven’t read a single comment or even the original post (all the same-sex talk bores me to death – it’s still a sin), and that would be the one comment I click on. 🙂

          Like

    11. “Your arguments are weak, and your fallacies abundant.”

      Identify them. Your responses to my logical arguments are “stop using logic.”

      Using logic isn’t an error Ryan. Read your own posts. Your argument now consists of “Stop using logic to debate with me.”

      Like

    12. By whatever means you choose to believe, we are created male and female for a purpose. For one to act contrary to that purpose is not normal at all.

      Hi, you’re confusing homosexuality with transgenderism. Wait. If memory serves, aren’t you the one who said that you saw “no discernable difference” between homosexuality and transsexuality? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

      Nor is it natural. That it might happen in nature is hardly justification for humans to concede to it.

      … You realize these two sentences contradict each other, yes? If it happens in nature, it is natural. That is the definition of natural.

      Like

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s