Lots of good arguments against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage”

A post over at Right Libertarian had some excellent responses to a pro-same-sex-marriage piece.  The author didn’t address the religious arguments the pro-SSM person used, so I took a shot at it.  Here’s a link to the original post.

– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

– 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).

– 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.

I list them that way to highlight that it isn’t just the “few” verses addressing homosexual behavior (as if what God says doesn’t count until He says it X times).

The Bible, that ancient book written by sheep herders and religious zealots, does indeed condemn homosexuality.

Note how they think they can completely dismiss the word of God with one fallacious sound bite. I’ll give them credit for this, though: At least they see that the Bible does condemn the behavior as sinful. Many Christians (the embarrassingly poorly informed and confused kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) will try to spin the verses to justify homosexual behavior and oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”

whatever Paul said on homosexuality is all that matters (ignoring the fact that Jesus said nothing about it)

They use the argument from silence (Jesus didn’t mention child abuse or wife-beating, but presumably we can safely speak against those). He did say marriage was designed by God for one man and one woman, forever.

Paul hates the gays.

This is where you ask them what passages they are referring to and how they came to that conclusion. Expect silence and then a change of subject.

Then refer them to Romans 1. In one of the most “big picture” books of the Bible, Paul notes how people suppress the truth of God in righteousness by ignoring his existence — even though He has made it plan to them — and that God has then given them over to their sinful desires. Then he gives exhibit A: A clear explanation how men and women will abandon their natural functions to have homosexual sex. It should be noted that while that was Paul’s most extreme example, he then gives a laundry list of ways that we all rebel (i.e., he wasn’t just picking on the LGBTQ folks).

Paul addresses this indirectly throughout his letters (all commands about parenting and marriage involve one man / one woman marriages)

The point is, the Bible is a pick and choose smorgasbord of random commands, and to claim that we should legislate based on it is preposterous.

I only use biblical arguments when discussing this with self-proclaimed Christians. I don’t use it for public policy debates with non-believers.

9. Gay’s are icky!

I’ve seen the “ick factor” argument used more by the promoters of “gay marriage” than by its opponents. It is clever on their part to avoid defending some inconvenient problems with their position.

Gay sex is indeed icky. There is a reason people spend billions on toilet paper, diapers, wipes, etc.: People like to keep feces either inside their body (temporarily) or as far away from it as possible. So if someone could force a straight person to have anal sex, I’d expect the straight person would not only want to use a condom but would beg for multiple full body condoms.

HIV and syphilis rates that are over forty times the average are also icky, but that factoid from the CDC is politically incorrect. Therefore, you don’t hear a lot about it — unless you propose to cut funding for these non-gay diseases, in which case you are an awful homophobe.

Those aren’t the reasons to oppose SSM, but they are perfectly valid topics when discussing the LGBTQ agenda.

“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.“ Straight from the horse’s mouth. Faith is based on nothing. By the transitive properties of common sense, arguments from faith are based on nothing.

Another quote from someone who hasn’t studied the Bible. Why didn’t the author reference the 13 Gospel presentations from the book of Acts, or 1 Peter 3:15, or many other passages, which all rely on arguments from reason and evidence? It is a classic case of reading a verse out of context. Juries don’t see the crime in progress, but they can gain assurance from the evidence — just like Christians do.

It really doesn’t. Adam married Eve, so, sure, the first couple out the gate was your traditional all-nude, constructed from dust and ribs hetero couple. After that, things get wonky.

The Bible is a thoroughly authentic book, recording the failures and consequences of everyone, including its heroes. That doesn’t mean it approves of its records.

And just because God’s design for marriage was for one man and one woman doesn’t mean people have to get married. Paul made it very clear that singleness was an option, and for him, a preference.

I love Bible lessons from people who have never seriously studied it.

The leap from homosexual marriage to bestiality isn’t a slippery slope, it’s a jump over the Grand Canyon.

The bigamy / bestiality / incest argument isn’t primarily a slippery slope (though, btw, not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies). It is a “cliff” argument, where the arguments for one thing (same-sex marriage) simultaneously support the others. The slippery slope only comes into play because it takes a little longer for society to slide down the moral decline and tolerate / accept the other behaviors.

55 thoughts on “Lots of good arguments against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage””

  1. You are a apologist jerk, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. We live in a secular society no matter what your god tells you. You forget author’s bias (unless you wish to say that all the books were magically poofed in front of their authors).

    Like

    1. No one is denying rights to homophiles. The thing with marriage is that there are qualifications: it must be a male with a female; they must not be closely related; they must not be already married; they must be of legal age, etc. It is not denying rights to someone who is not qualified for what they are seeking.

      If you say homophiles have the right to marry members of the same sex, then how can you legitimately deny those same “rights” to incestuous couples, or to polygamists, or any other unit?

      Like

      1. Homophiles?

        Is it your first instinct to call a group by an alternate name to make them seem evil?

        Golden rule applies here my friend.

        Like

      2. You mean the groups that want to teach 5 yr. olds how normal LGBTQ behavior is? Those groups don’t need names to make them seem evil. (Note: Not all LGBTQ people want to poison the minds of kids, but the larger groups work at that 24×7.)

        Like

      3. They don’t want to poison the minds of kids they just want kids to know that homosexuality is equally respectable as marriage between a man and a woman.

        Like

      4. But it isn’t as respectable, and little kids shouldn’t have to even think about such things as how transgenderism is “normal” and how they should not consider they sexuality fixed.

        Like

      5. Exactly.

        Small children are much better off living in fear of their flesh being burned in an eternal hellfire for any small sin they commit. This fear is equally horrific for children that think someone they love and depend on will burn in hell for loving the wrong person.

        And you criticize me for the origin of my morals. Mine treat everyone equally, not as if created ill and commanded to be well.

        Like

      6. . . . someone they love and depend on will burn in hell for loving the wrong person.

        Bzzzzzt. Nice try. No one burns in Hell for loving anyone. You just pervert the word love to include same-sex relations. There are many relationships — most, in fact — that are not made better by sex. You may love your grandma but having sex with her will not improve the relationship.

        Mine treat everyone equally, not as if created ill and commanded to be well.

        Yours are pure moral relativism. God treats everyone equally: You pay for the sins that you commit, or you can trust in Jesus and be forgiven.

        Like

      7. Would it be possible for you to change to homosexuality easily? Don’t think so. But you suggest theirs is not fixed, disgusting.
        Yes there sexuality is definitely just as respectable as ours they deserve equal rights and in education they should be treated as such.

        Like

      8. Would it be possible for you to change to homosexuality easily?

        Whether something is difficult to change is irrelevant. Many sins are tough to quit.

        Yes there sexuality is definitely just as respectable as ours they deserve equal rights and in education they should be treated as such.

        That’s just more ungrounded opinions from you. I’m on the side of God and natural law. I love when evos try to rationalize why evolution needs homosexual behavior and how it supports communities blah blah blah — as if an absence of LGBTQ people would have resulted in evos wondering where the gays were — because after all, their theory predicts they would exist! Tautology 101.

        Like

      9. Many theories for homosexuality’s origin state that it is bisexual behaviour commonly used to become higher on the power hierarchy (still seen in bonobos today), and it is just a small step from there to homosexuality. It may have survived church burnings in the middle ages by suppression. But that is mainly how it has survived, it is not “tautology” in any way. If there was no homosexuality it would not have a purpose because in that case we would just know it was not have started being used as a technique for popularity.

        Like

      10. So is there a purpose for every inclination of man? Some are inclined to dominate all within their circle of influence and then expand that circle. To what purpose? Some are inclined to take from others what appeal to them without the consent of or care for the owner. To what purpose?

        There are all sorts of quirks of human nature that are simply that…quirks, and not all benefit the species at all. Some are more tangibly harmful than others.

        That a species has two sexes for procreation means the attraction of one of the sexes for another of its kind is an aberration. It is subjective reasoning, in this case, lame excuses, to say that one’s orientation denotes the ideal state of being or the ideal destiny of that person. If that was the case, then one oriented toward violence or theft must be allowed to achieve his ultimate state.

        Like

      11. The word “homophile” is what these people used of themselves at the turn of the 20th century – it means “same love” – i.e., love of sameness. But over in Germany they started using “gay”, which was picked up in the USA, because they wanted to distract from the behavior conducted and pretend it was just normal loving couples who happen to enjoy members of the same sex. The word homosexual never used to be a noun, rather it was descriptive of a particular behavior. So what happened was they decided to use it as an identity – that’s right, makes one’s sexual behavior their identity!

        So I will not give legitimacy to “gay” because they rarely seem to be happy in their deathstyle, and I will not use “homosexual” as an identity, because, contrary to homophile claims, one’s identity is not their sexual behavior or orientation! They are just people who like homosexuality.

        This does not make them seem evil, but it refuses to give sanction to their behavior. And, they are not a “group” any more than fornicators or adulterers are a group. They are individuals who partake of bad behavioral choices.

        Now explain how this violates the golden rule!

        Like

      12. All the homosexual couples I know are in a happy relationship. You use “lifestyle” or rather “deathstyle” to describe homosexuality and you call it a “choice” from what I have heard it is not. If you were unaware of your religion’s homophobia would you easily be able to become homosexual? Of course not! It is because it is not a simple “choice” but something deeper.
        Their are homosexual “groups” that are banded together, often to protect their rights from homophobic people like you.
        I see your point on homosexuality, but if they wish it to be considered their identity (or part of it) they can do as they wish.

        Like

      13. “Homophobia” is a petty pejorative used by those without real arguments. I know lots of gays and get along fine with them. I just don’t tell them that God is OK with what they are doing, and I am not afraid of the gay lobby like you and the other real homophobes are. They deny logic, common sense, decency and (for the religious people) their God because they’d rather see 5 yr. olds get perverted lessons than stand up for the truth.

        Like

      14. The homosexual “lifestyle” is a death style, with studies proving they have a shorter lifespan from that sexual behavior. Being happy in a relationship doesn’t make it right. I dare say there are adulterers and fornicators happy in their relationships.

        People can choose to call themselves something by redefining words, but that doesn’t mean I have to pander to them by allowing them that power.

        Like

      15. This is a common rejoinder, that “all the homosexual couples I know…”

        I’ve known many “happy couples” in my time who divorced. One cannot “know” well enough the status of any private situation of another couple.

        I think it is silly to insist that if one “wanted” to become a homo that it couldn’t be done. Often, many activists will say that you can’t know until you try it. Maybe that’s true, maybe it isn’t. Someone without the moral upbringing of religion might indeed be coaxed into trying such a thing if the conditions were right for him to do so. Who knows? Seems open-mindedness is limited by virtue of one’s position on the issue. If one is open-minded enough to “tolerate” the behavior in others, why wouldn’t some be open-minded enough to experiment and eventually find they enjoy such sexual practices?

        But none of that matters to someone with a firm moral foundation. The morality dictates the behavior and a moral person wouldn’t engage in ANY sexual behavior not permitted by the moral teachings of one’s faith. Case in point, adultery for the average Christian hetero is out of the question, even if one has desires for someone other than one’s spouse. It’s called “doing the right thing”.

        Like

      16. “These people” he says.

        I won’t change your mind on homosexuals. You obviously harbor deep hatred to use such language.

        But as for the golden rule, I’m sure you know that it is good to treat others as you would have them treat you. I don’t know if you like being called names, but I always like to call people by the name they prefer.

        People who spell Obama with a zero, or Bush with a dollar sign take a few steps down the ladder of credibility with each such indignation.

        Give people enough respect to call them by their chosen name, whether it be a group or personal identification.

        Like

      17. “These people” he says.

        I won’t change your mind on homosexuals. You obviously harbor deep hatred to use such language.

        Wow, gays are getting more and more thin-skinned these days!

        Like

      18. So now you know my heart and it is because of “hatred” that I refuse to give homophiles the power to change language to suit their agendas! No, I don’t hate the people. I just refuse to allow them to redefine words; you know, such as “marriage.”!

        But, like all homosexualists (those who are homophiles or support homosexuality) always resort to the victim card of “hate,” or “bigotry,” etc, so they don’t have to address the legitimate arguments against homosexual behavior.

        Like

      19. I know your heart as much as you know that homosexual cannot love each other.

        You do hate them. You just hide behind the Bible in order to feel good about yourself.

        The blood of every young Christian who kills himself because he will never be accepted in on your hands.

        Like

      20. What a train wreck of a comment. If someone kills himself because of what God says that isn’t the fault of any Christian. Those “accepting” that homosexual behavior isn’t a sin are the selfish, hateful ones. They love their comfort and popularity more than speaking the truth.

        Like

      21. You are now slandering me as well as bearing false witness. I do not hate anyone. Just because I tell the truth, that doesn’t make it hate. Like Neil says, “Truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.”

        Like

    2. Hey, that’s Mr. Apologist Jerk to you, buddy. [Turns cheek] Oh, whatever. Thanks for admitting you have no arguments besides name calling.

      Seriously, tone it down. I don’t want others to get in the habit of petty dialog like that.

      Oh, and your worldview has no basis for name calling. Remember, your Darwinian evolution “must” have caused my beliefs. So don’t get so mad at it. It is irrational.

      they deserve the same rights as everyone else

      Yep. And they get them, including the right marry someone of the opposite sex. I’m not just being cute, that is a perfectly legitimate argument. They have as much of a right to a square circle as they do to a “same sex union of a man and a woman.”

      And they can socialize and live with whomever they like and get married at any number of apostate churches. I just oppose the need for the gov’t to get involved in their relationships.

      And let me point out how silly it is.

      1. My post was about how a pro-SSM person made ridiculous arguments about the Bible. Using your own logic, that is a perfectly natural thing for me to correct.

      2. I typically don’t make religious arguments against SSM unless I’m speaking to religious people or if the pagans bring it up. I am glad to argue against it all day long without religious arguments. It is such a farce that one doesn’t even need to bring God into it to show its faults. The link did a great job of exposing the flaws in the secular arguments, so I didn’t repeat them here.

      3. I have no idea what your last sentence meant.

      Like

      1. Sorry, I get pretty mad when people attempt to take away a basic human right because of religious intentions in secular societies.
        They hardly caused your beliefs that is like saying because we understand physics a sun burn is a phycist’s fault!
        The last sentence was trying to say that unless the gospels were given pre-written to the writers of the gospels they will contain the bias of the writer in it, whether against homosexuality or anything else.

        Like

      2. Sorry, I get pretty mad when people attempt to take away a basic human right because of religious intentions in secular societies.

        Yeah, because the USSR, Nazi Germany and current China all sanctioned oxymoronic same-sex marriage. Oh, wait, no they didn’t . . .

        You aren’t very consistent. Your only “basic human rights” are those granted to you by those in power, which is pure moral relativism.

        If there is any basic human right it is the right not to be crushed and dismembered because you are unwanted. Yet look how many evos support legalized abortion. Oh, and it is sick how they rationalize that as part of helping the species along as well.

        They hardly caused your beliefs that is like saying because we understand physics a sun burn is a phycist’s fault!

        Wrong again. Where else could my beliefs have come from but from evolution? In a purely materialistic universe, we are just bags of chemicals who “think” we have this thing called morality.

        Re. the Gospels — God used the writers to include their experiences and personality yet come up with exactly what He wanted.

        Like

      3. Just as an aside, I once posted a piece on my blog based on an article indicating the homosexual influence of the Nazi party. It wasn’t homosexuality they hated, it was weak, “swishy” homosexuals.

        Like

      4. Sorry, I get pretty mad when people attempt to take away a basic human right because of religious intentions in secular societies.

        You can be irrational and get mad if you like, but I only addressed the religious arguments that the pro-gay marriage people used. I just argue the secular points with pagans — the definition of marriage, how gays by nature and design don’t produce the next generation, etc.

        Like

      5. William, no one is taking away any human rights from anyone. Even leaving aside the religious argument, no society in history has ever said marriage was anything other that members of the opposite sex. Those rare cases when an evil ruler such as Nero claimed “marriage” with a homophile were never recognized by the society.

        Like

  2. Excellent post! Good for quick reference when my thought processes get tired out. :oD

    I’m still waiting for them to explain why same-sex “marriage” is okay and yet incestuous marriages aren’t. If an adult child wants to marry a parent, what is wrong with that? At least their biology has the right parts fitting.

    Like

    1. Because it would be lethal to any child of the couple (inbreeding), and it is impossible for anyone to take out the risk that it is because the father did something to force the marriage.

      Like

      1. It isn’t always lethal to the child, it just raises risks. I’d wager the risks are much lower than being gay (40x times rates for syphilis and HIV). And you could just require them to use birth control and abort any mistakes, right?

        Like

  3. Neil…

    – 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.

    OR, conversely, you could note rightly that .03% of 31,173 Bible verses that seem to refer to some form of homosexuality condemn whichever form they refer to.

    That is, being generous and saying that there are maybe ten verses that at least seem to be talking about some form of homosexuality in THE WHOLE BIBLE, and in those ten verses, it seems to be (or definitely is) condemning whatever behavior is being referred to.

    That still begs the question: EVEN IF some of those ten passages are referring to some form of homosexual behavior and condemning it, WHAT homosexual behavior are they condemning?

    Like

    1. OR, conversely, you could note rightly that .03% of 31,173 Bible verses that seem to refer to some form of homosexuality condemn whichever form they refer to.

      Almighty God only has to say something once. The Bible covers a lot of topics, and despite what the LGBTQ world thinks, it doesn’t all revolve around them and their sexual preferences.

      That is, being generous and saying that there are maybe ten verses that at least seem to be talking about some form of homosexuality in THE WHOLE BIBLE, and in those ten verses, it seems to be (or definitely is) condemning whatever behavior is being referred to.

      It is about 5-6 passages, which is plenty (Old and New Testament, males and females).

      That still begs the question: EVEN IF some of those ten passages are referring to some form of homosexual behavior and condemning it, WHAT homosexual behavior are they condemning?

      It addresses the homosexual behavior being condemned: Men and women rejecting God in unrighteousness and acting outside their normal sexual function. You should read it for yourself.

      And again, there are zero passages supporting “same-sex marriage.”

      Remember, my post was in response to someone claiming to understand the Bible.

      Like

      1. Why don’t you do the breakdown on how many passages that refer to murdering your own child state that it is good versus the amount that state it is bad?

        God only needs to say something once, apparently.

        Would you murder your children, if the request came through?

        Like

      2. Cute non sequitur. I don’t waste time with people trotting out quotes from The Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites. The odds of them actually trying to understanding anything properly are approaching zero. If you really care, there are plenty of sources about Bible difficulties out there. But we both know you don’t really care.

        Like

  4. It would behoove you to link to the original post. Quoting out of context from a link that itself was quoting out of context is pretty pathetic way of representing another person’s views. It’s also cowardly, belittling a person without them having the knowledge of it occurring. Of course, like Right Libertarian, I don’t expect a fair and open conversation (he blocked me from commenting on the post anymore, even though I had remained cordial and it was my post he was referencing).

    Can I just point out how rude and condescending you are. It blows my mind how awful Christians are to other people online. I get that the internet is the home for hateful, antisocial language, but if you are truly “redeemed” by Christ, hoping to be Christ-like, why not change your tone? Christ’s anger only came out against religious hypocrisy. (This is probably where you’ll offer some mocking refutation because Jesus also got mad at a fig tree.) If I believed in the fairy tale of Christ, this is where I’d tell you, Christ is not in you.

    I have studied the Bible. I grew up reading the Bible, I grew up in Christian school and church, reading the Bible at home every day. Am I a theologian? No. I have no doubt that your religious-sanctioned homophobia has led you to study the Bible much more thoroughly on this subject than me, mainly because I don’t care what the Bible says on the subject, it’s a book of myths and morally reprehensible teachings (with some good stuff sprinkled in).

    That a modern person can base their moral outlook on such a book and then condescendingly look down on others for not is the height of humor.

    To answer some points:

    Where do I see that Paul hates gays: In all the verses where he condemns homosexuality. Calling homosexuality an abomination is showing his hatred. Calling it the Word of God surely makes you feel good, but it’s no more the word of God than it is the word of Santa Claus.

    Jesus’ silence on the subject does not equal acceptance of the behavior, I’ll give you that. But since the topic of homosexuality as a sin has become such a huge topic for the religious right, it is worth noting that Christ apparently didn’t care about the issue. In fact, Christ’s most important issue was that of poverty, encouraging those who followed him to sell all of their things and to take care of the poor. Modern American Christians don’t do either. But hey, I’m sure you’ve found some apologist who has rejiggered Christ’s words to support gluttony, greed and Capitalism. After all, if Christ stood for anything, it was all about justifying one’s own lifestyle while vigorously judging others. As I recall, he said, “Point out the speck in another person’s eye before taking the log out of yours.” That’s how that verse goes, right?

    Frankly, I don’t care to debate the Bible. I’ve known every kind of Christian on the spectrum from Fred Phelps (a not-so-distant cousin of your faith) to New-Age-Everything-Is-Acceptable Christianity, and they all have their books and websites of apologists to support their interpretation of the Bible. Of course your interpretation is the right interpretation. There is no question.

    I’m more interested in the actual facts of homosexuality. For instance, you keep talking about the 40x higher rate of STDs. Do you think that homosexuality is the cause of this, or is it the behavior of having multiple partners? Are you under the impression that homosexual sex creates STDs out of thin air, or do you realize that risky sexual behavior results in these higher numbers?

    Is promiscuity and homosexuality necessarily linked? Well, if you say yes, then you’re making an argument that homosexuals are behaving according to their nature. If you argue that promiscuity is just a choice of homosexuals that they could opt out of, I’d agree with you. And I suggest that encouraging monogamous marriage would be one way to turn that around. Yes, promiscuity within the confines of homosexual marriage is still higher than that of heterosexual marriage, but it’s considerably lower than that seen in non-married homosexuals. If the ending of promiscuity is the goal, then it is a step in the right direction.

    Yep. And they get them, including the right marry someone of the opposite sex. I’m not just being cute, that is a perfectly legitimate argument.

    This is not a legitimate argument, and the fact that you think so is why people like you and Right Libertarian (who said the exact same thing, maybe even word for word, which tells me you’re both getting your rhetoric from a third party that feeds you all your talking points) will eventually lose this fight. Rational, non-homophobic people will hear sentences like that and say, “That doesn’t make any sense. Maybe nothing they say makes sense.”

    The view that “redefining” marriage somehow destroys marriage is unsupported. Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will do exactly one thing: Change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. All the other boogeymen are vapor fears. In the countries that allow same-sex marriage now, has a single one of them made bestiality or polygamy legal? The answer is no (and I checked). In fact, the countries that do allow polygamy (mostly African and southern Asia) are usually the most vehemently anti-gay countries.

    If, 20 years after same-sex marriage is passed, groups push for polygamy, that doesn’t make one the cause of the other, no more than allowing interracial marriage caused the fight for gay marriage. (Though, by your slippery-slope/cliff logic, you could rightly make the argument that interracial marriage should never have been allowed because gay marriage proponents use it as an argument for their view.)

    As far as anal sex being an icky homosexual act: haha. Clue in, lots of heteros do it, too, and we enjoy it.

    The truth is, debating this topic with you is the same as debating it with Fred Phelps. A lack of humility and your utter disdain for people who disagree with you gives you a nice little shield of self-assurance. And that’s fine.

    You know why? Because it doesn’t matter. We can both be arrogant pricks to each other all day long, but in the end, it changes nothing. We are moving towards a world where people are growing up and not taking the Bible as literally true. Gay marriage will be legal here some day. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but in another couple generations, I’d almost guarantee it. Bible literalism and arguments from “God’s will” are horrendous plagues on this world, and I’ll be happy to see them diminish.

    Christianity can be a force for good, a movement that encourages charity and peace. I have no problem standing alongside those Christians whose faith leads them to kindness and beauty, as opposed to blogs designed to argue on behalf of stances that Christ didn’t deem worthy enough of his time to even mention.

    Your every argument relies on one weak premise: The Bible is the literal world of God (which itself sits on a shaky premise, that there is a God). That’s an untenable position to be in, and I am content knowing that the world will move forward while you stay behind.

    (Block me if you wish, I don’t even care. I would just say, if you’re going to quote me, link to me. It’s a non-cowardly way of blogging.)

    Like

    1. It would behoove you to link to the original post. Quoting out of context from a link that itself was quoting out of context is pretty pathetic way of representing another person’s views. It’s also cowardly, belittling a person without them having the knowledge of it occurring.

      You got so upset that someone would have to click one extra link to get to your page? Wow, you must have a sweet life if that is your biggest problem today. I’ll be glad to go to your post and link back here. You can have all the attention you like. And, for the record, I had trouble finding the link at his site. I only saw it now at the very bottom and it just said, “Here.”

      Of course, like Right Libertarian, I don’t expect a fair and open conversation (he blocked me from commenting on the post anymore, even though I had remained cordial and it was my post he was referencing).

      As cordial as you were here?

      Can I just point out how rude and condescending you are.

      I re-read my post and I disagree. I just pointed out the many errors of someone claiming to interpret the Bible properly.

      I have no doubt that your religious-sanctioned homophobia has led you to study the Bible much more thoroughly on this subject than me, mainly because I don’t care what the Bible says on the subject, it’s a book of myths and morally reprehensible teachings (with some good stuff sprinkled in).

      Then why did you write about it? We seem to agree that you don’t know what it really says.

      Re. “homophobia” — The true homophobes are those who are so scared of the gay lobby and of being politically incorrect that they mock God, the Bible, natural law and common sense.

      Where do I see that Paul hates gays: In all the verses where he condemns homosexuality. Calling homosexuality an abomination is showing his hatred. Calling it the Word of God surely makes you feel good, but it’s no more the word of God than it is the word of Santa Claus.

      You can’t string two coherent sentences together. Whether you think the Bible is the word of God or not is irrelevant if you are trying to say what it really meant.

      I do appreciate that you are conceding that you are a very hateful person. You are condemning Christians over and over again, which by your definition is hatred.

      Jesus’ silence on the subject does not equal acceptance of the behavior, I’ll give you that. But since the topic of homosexuality as a sin has become such a huge topic for the religious right,

      That canard implies that “gay marriage” was the norm for thousands of years in all cultures and then these mean Christians came along to change everything.

      it is worth noting that Christ apparently didn’t care about the issue.

      Another Bible lesson, eh? Jesus is God and the whole book is his word. He was very clear about his design for sex and marriage. Homosexual behavior was not a big issue and “gay marriage” would have been a joke, just like it is in most places in the world today and was around the world for thousands of years.

      In fact, Christ’s most important issue was that of poverty, encouraging those who followed him to sell all of their things and to take care of the poor.

      I think his main issue was “repent and believe.” Yes, he said to help the poor. No, he didn’t tell everyone to sell everything. He said that to one guy, and there is more to that story.

      Modern American Christians don’t do either.

      Really now? I didn’t know you had access to my checkbook and calendar. I know lots of Christians who donate lots of money and time helping the poor.

      As I recall, he said, “Point out the speck in another person’s eye before taking the log out of yours.” That’s how that verse goes, right?

      Yes, he taught not to judge hypocritically.

      Frankly, I don’t care to debate the Bible.

      Then you probably shouldn’t write about it on your blog.

      I’m more interested in the actual facts of homosexuality. For instance, you keep talking about the 40x higher rate of STDs. Do you think that homosexuality is the cause of this, or is it the behavior of having multiple partners? Are you under the impression that homosexual sex creates STDs out of thin air, or do you realize that risky sexual behavior results in these higher numbers?

      Yes, we agree that it is the wild promiscuity of the average gay community that results in those figures.

      Is promiscuity and homosexuality necessarily linked? Well, if you say yes, then you’re making an argument that homosexuals are behaving according to their nature. If you argue that promiscuity is just a choice of homosexuals that they could opt out of, I’d agree with you. And I suggest that encouraging monogamous marriage would be one way to turn that around.

      That argument doesn’t follow. Even if the gov’t doesn’t confer a special title on these relationships doesn’t mean they can’t be fully committed and not promiscuous.

      Yes, promiscuity within the confines of homosexual marriage is still higher than that of heterosexual marriage, but it’s considerably lower than that seen in non-married homosexuals. If the ending of promiscuity is the goal, then it is a step in the right direction.

      You’re the one trying to regulate their sex lives, not me. I’m just saying that the church should teach it is a sin (religious argument) and that the state has no need to regulate the relationships (secular argument).

      “Yep. And they get them, including the right marry someone of the opposite sex. I’m not just being cute, that is a perfectly legitimate argument.”

      This is not a legitimate argument, and the fact that you think so is why people like you and Right Libertarian (who said the exact same thing, maybe even word for word, which tells me you’re both getting your rhetoric from a third party that feeds you all your talking points) will eventually lose this fight. Rational, non-homophobic people will hear sentences like that and say, “That doesn’t make any sense. Maybe nothing they say makes sense.”

      That is a perfectly logical. Note how you couldn’t refute it, you just said that other people will agree with you that it doesn’t make sense. And that is some kind of logical proof?

      The view that “redefining” marriage somehow destroys marriage is unsupported. Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will do exactly one thing: Change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. All the other boogeymen are vapor fears. In the countries that allow same-sex marriage now, has a single one of them made bestiality or polygamy legal? The answer is no (and I checked). In fact, the countries that do allow polygamy (mostly African and southern Asia) are usually the most vehemently anti-gay countries.

      But with your logic, why not make those other things legal? Why are you such a hater of those people?

      As far as anal sex being an icky homosexual act: haha. Clue in, lots of heteros do it, too, and we enjoy it.

      That’s your problem.

      The truth is, debating this topic with you is the same as debating it with Fred Phelps. A lack of humility and your utter disdain for people who disagree with you gives you a nice little shield of self-assurance. And that’s fine.

      Unlike your winsomeness. . . .

      You know why? Because it doesn’t matter. We can both be arrogant pricks to each other all day long, but in the end, it changes nothing. We are moving towards a world where people are growing up and not taking the Bible as literally true. Gay marriage will be legal here some day. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but in another couple generations, I’d almost guarantee it. Bible literalism and arguments from “God’s will” are horrendous plagues on this world, and I’ll be happy to see them diminish.

      You are probably right, but that doesn’t mean I won’t fight it. People eventually won abortion rights, and now tens of millions of unwanted human beings have been slaughtered. Moral degradation may demonstrate change, but it isn’t “progress.”

      Christianity can be a force for good, a movement that encourages charity and peace. I have no problem standing alongside those Christians whose faith leads them to kindness and beauty, as opposed to blogs designed to argue on behalf of stances that Christ didn’t deem worthy enough of his time to even mention.

      Actually, God mentioned many things that you ignore.

      Your every argument relies on one weak premise: The Bible is the literal world of God (which itself sits on a shaky premise, that there is a God). That’s an untenable position to be in, and I am content knowing that the world will move forward while you stay behind.

      If there is no God then you are the most irrational of all. Your materialistic naturalism would be completely responsible for my belief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, so why would you get so angry about me holding these views?

      (Block me if you wish, I don’t even care. I would just say, if you’re going to quote me, link to me. It’s a non-cowardly way of blogging.)

      Cowardly? Because I didn’t see the little link on the original blog? Please. I’ll leave a link to my page on your blog. Let’s see if you leave it up . . .

      Like

  5. If there is no God then you are the most irrational of all. Your materialistic naturalism would be completely responsible for my belief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, so why would you get so angry about me holding these views?

    I have no problem with you holding your views. I have a problem with your views being used to dictate the lives of others. Fighting irrationality isn’t irrational.

    Then why did you write about it? We seem to agree that you don’t know what it really says.

    Re. “homophobia” — The true homophobes are those who are so scared of the gay lobby and of being politically incorrect that they mock God, the Bible, natural law and common sense.

    I’m not saying I don’t know what’s in the Bible. I’ve read it. I’m saying I’m not up to date on all the modern Christian Apologists interpretations of the Bible. You claim the Bible is pretty straightforward. I disagree, there are contradictions aplenty. Of course, there are always people who will use their convoluted reasoning to find loopholes to explain those contradictions. But if the Word of God is supposed to be for everyone, why do you need to have a doctorate’s degree and a thousand pages of exegesis to “get” it.

    And, once again, this notion that there is some huge Gay Agenda manipulating people. Ever think that there are just decent people who want equal rights for people? Of course not, there must be a secret society pushing an evil conspiracy. I’m not beholding to any lobby, I wasn’t forced into my views. I just believe in decency.

    Half of what you say is rhetorical nonsense.

    No, he didn’t tell everyone to sell everything. He said that to one guy, and there is more to that story.

    I love it. In this instance, what Jesus said was meant for just one guy, but everything else is meant for everyone. By your logic, everything in the Bible could be said to be for just one person or one group. Because, in truth, it was. It’s merely convenient for you to ignore certain passages that would require sacrifice on your part. When most of America has IPhones and designer glasses/shoes and a wall full of DVDs and flatscreen plasma TVs, I don’t need to see any check books to know Christian America looks nothing like Christ.

    Yes, he taught not to judge hypocritically.

    And you are a hypocrite. Are you without sin? Are you living by Christ’s example? I’m sure you believe you are. The Pharisees had it all right, too.

    That is a perfectly logical. Note how you couldn’t refute it, you just said that other people will agree with you that it doesn’t make sense. And that is some kind of logical proof?

    I didn’t refute it because I have before on Righty’s page. You say that homosexuals can just marry someone of the opposite sex. Someone they wouldn’t love or be attracted to. Besides for being a recipe for divorce and an unhappy family (bad things, I would think), it also seems to indicate that you don’t think people should marry for love. They should just marry to be ‘normal.’ Great message, there.

    If the country suddenly said people can’t practice Islam, but that’s okay, everyone can still practice Christianity, would that not be the exact same thing? It’s called discrimination. (Which you’d likely be fine with.)

    You are probably right, but that doesn’t mean I won’t fight it. People eventually won abortion rights, and now tens of millions of unwanted human beings have been slaughtered. Moral degradation may demonstrate change, but it isn’t “progress.”

    Even if I was one to agree with you on abortion, I’d have a hard time consolidating the view that two men getting married is at all related to “slaughtering” millions. If you can’t keep things in perspective, how can anyone take you seriously? This is why your side will lose this war. Your insistence on absolutes, black and whites, makes it impossible for rational people to get on board with your views. Hell, you are bashing a fellow Christian on the other blog because you don’t consider him a “real Christian.” That’s the sort of view that doesn’t open itself up to growth.

    I’m sure you don’t care. You’re in the Moral Right and you won’t water down your message for anyone. And when we’re both nothing but dust again, the world will move on with your archaic notions long forgotten.

    That’s actually a pretty happy thought. And they say atheism is hopeless!

    (I wasn’t cordial to you, by the way, because I already saw how rude you were being to people in this post and on Righty’s blog; I figured it would be wasted on you.)

    Like

    1. I have no problem with you holding your views. I have a problem with your views being used to dictate the lives of others. Fighting irrationality isn’t irrational.

      You are begging the question. You have never demonstrated that I’m being irrational. You just state it as if you’ve proved it then you use your statement as “evidence.” That’s gibberish.

      And if you read carefully, you’d know that I only use the religious views with other religious people and/or secular people who bring them up — i.e., people like you. Secular reasoning is plenty to point out why the gov’t doesn’t need to get involved with these unions.

      I’m not saying I don’t know what’s in the Bible. I’ve read it.

      And I pointed out where every claim you made was incorrect. My views aren’t some newfangled interpretation. If you want to show where I’m wrong about the Bible, you need to refer to the text. Instead, you make your repetitive and pointless “Santa Claus” digs and say it isn’t true. But you brought up the claims about what it says, regardless of whether it is the word of God. You need to defend your claims, but you change the subject — and then you act like I’m being mean for pointing out your errors.

      But if the Word of God is supposed to be for everyone, why do you need to have a doctorate’s degree and a thousand pages of exegesis to “get” it.

      The key themes of the Bible are plain, but as you might expect with the most serious and important topic in the universe, there are complex matters as well.

      For example, there are over 100 direct and indirect claims that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Are verses like this not clear to you? 1 John 5:12-13 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

      And, once again, this notion that there is some huge Gay Agenda manipulating people. Ever think that there are just decent people who want equal rights for people? Of course not, there must be a secret society pushing an evil conspiracy. I’m not beholding to any lobby, I wasn’t forced into my views. I just believe in decency.

      Actually, there is an agenda — http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/080213 . I am not claiming you are an official member of the group, just that you are running their plays for them.

      Half of what you say is rhetorical nonsense.

      Here’s a debating tip: If you want to throw out a random insult, it is best to back it up with an example. Otherwise, it looks like petty name calling.

      No, he didn’t tell everyone to sell everything. He said that to one guy, and there is more to that story.

      I love it. In this instance, what Jesus said was meant for just one guy, but everything else is meant for everyone. By your logic, everything in the Bible could be said to be for just one person or one group. Because, in truth, it was. It’s merely convenient for you to ignore certain passages that would require sacrifice on your part. When most of America has IPhones and designer glasses/shoes and a wall full of DVDs and flatscreen plasma TVs, I don’t need to see any check books to know Christian America looks nothing like Christ.

      You missed the point. To properly understand a passage, you need to read the whole passage. Again, you have no idea how much I give.

      “Yes, he taught not to judge hypocritically.”

      And you are a hypocrite. Are you without sin? Are you living by Christ’s example? I’m sure you believe you are. The Pharisees had it all right, too.

      Yes, I am a sinner. I’m the first to admit that. I’m a sinner who needs a Savior, and Jesus is that Savior. I love Jesus and attempt to follow him. I’m not saved by what I do, I’m saved by what He did. The Pharisees thought they didn’t need Jesus — just like you think you don’t need him. You’ve made up a morality — which, if you are honest with yourself, you don’t even follow well — and think you’re doing a swell job of following it. You think you don’t need God. You’re the Pharisee, not me.

      I didn’t refute it because I have before on Righty’s page. You say that homosexuals can just marry someone of the opposite sex. Someone they wouldn’t love or be attracted to. Besides for being a recipe for divorce and an unhappy family (bad things, I would think), it also seems to indicate that you don’t think people should marry for love. They should just marry to be ‘normal.’ Great message, there.

      You (deliberately?) missed the point. You claim we are denying them a right to something. I said homosexuals had the right to participate in marriage. If they don’t want to exercise that right, that is their business. I never suggested that they marry someone they don’t love. I am just saying the gov’t doesn’t need to regulate their relationships.

      If the country suddenly said people can’t practice Islam, but that’s okay, everyone can still practice Christianity, would that not be the exact same thing? It’s called discrimination. (Which you’d likely be fine with.)

      No, I wouldn’t be fine with that. I support religious freedom. I wish Islamic countries did as well. But your analogy fails. People have a choice whether to participate in real marriage, and they have a choice whether to practice any religion or no religion.

      Even if I was one to agree with you on abortion, I’d have a hard time consolidating the view that two men getting married is at all related to “slaughtering” millions. If you can’t keep things in perspective, how can anyone take you seriously? This is why your side will lose this war. Your insistence on absolutes, black and whites, makes it impossible for rational people to get on board with your views. Hell, you are bashing a fellow Christian on the other blog because you don’t consider him a “real Christian.” That’s the sort of view that doesn’t open itself up to growth.

      The self-proclaimed “Christian” holds views similar to yours on the Bible. The Bible warns many times against false teachers. I am doing nothing wrong to criticize him.

      Re. black and white — yeah, I can really sense your shades of gray on this topic.

      I’m sure you don’t care. You’re in the Moral Right and you won’t water down your message for anyone. And when we’re both nothing but dust again, the world will move on with your archaic notions long forgotten.

      But I’m the one living consistently with my worldview. I believe the evidence that Jesus really lived, died and rose again — http://tinyurl.com/ykzpu42 and I trust in him for my salvation. It is a great life. You, on the other hand, are not being consistent. If you are just going to turn to dust and your life will have been meaningless, why are you wasting time here?

      (I wasn’t cordial to you, by the way, because I already saw how rude you were being to people in this post and on Righty’s blog; I figured it would be wasted on you.)

      Which means you are never cordial at all. Check.

      You have adopted the perverted form of tolerance, where merely disagreeing with you means people are being unkind. That’s sad. Re-read my post sometime and note how I dealt with the facts, then you responded with name calling.

      For now, I don’t think this blog is for you. I’ve given three lengthy replies (including the original post), so that’s all you’ll get.

      I hope you reconsider your views. Eternity is a might long time to be wrong.

      Like

    2. Lyttleton,

      I don’t have to address all of your points from your latest comment, but here are a couple:

      Jesus didn’t attack the Pharisees for not believing in him.

      Really now? What about this verse?

      John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”

      Please read your comment, then that verse, then repeat. Then tell me again how you know about the Bible.

      All of your other claims are equally empty. If you want my views on giving, click on that category to the left. If you think I’m going to brag about much I give then that’s just another passage you don’t understand.

      You seem perplexed that people might moderate you. I suggest that you ask a friend who gives honest advice, then show him what you’ve written here and on the Right Libertarian post and see why people might not be interested in conversing with you.

      Once it’s out of the womb, the religious right couldn’t care less how it survives.

      Oh, that canard. See http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/pro-lifers-dont-care-about-kids-after-they-are-born/

      Then answer this simple question to yourself: If 3,000 toddlers per day were getting crushed and dismembered because they were unwanted, could you oppose that without being obliged to care for them to adulthood? Or would that mean you didn’t care for them?

      Re. abortions: Your contention that abortions wouldn’t go down if illegal makes no sense. Using that logic, we’d get rid of laws against theft and murder because people will steal and kill anyway.

      Remember, if your worldview is right then Darwinian evolution is 100.00% responsible for my beliefs. I can’t help it. So why are you being so irrational and complaining about them?

      And if my worldview is right, then one day you will die and face your creator and have to give an account for your life. Just as the clay doesn’t tell the potter what to do, you don’t get to sit in judgment of the one true God and tell him how the universe works. I encourage you to do some real Bible study and to swallow your pride. You may enjoy your pride now but eternity is a mighty long time.

      Like

    3. P.S. You asked if I agreed with Democrat Fred Phelps. If you did the Venn Diagrams you’d find some things in common, I’m sure: e.g., there are 24 hours in a day, the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin.

      But I think Democrat Fred Phelps is a fake and just out to make money. He preaches false things and is counterproductive to Christianity.

      So on many important issues I completely disagree with Democrat Fred Phelps.

      Hope that helps with your assessment of Democrat Fred Phelps.

      Oh, and did I mention that he is a Democrat? Because he is — http://tinyurl.com/28t2ug4 .

      Like

    4. Just a minute to address some more of your fallacies:

      Like Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

      You, like Gandhi, are very proud and judgmental. You think you are better than others. Your self-righteousness will not help you when you die and stand before God. Even if you were right, your standard is other people but the real standards are God’s.

      And Gandhi was overrated — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/was-mahatma-gandhi-really-a-good-person/

      Natural Selection has nothing to do with your personal beliefs

      They have everything to do with them. If naturalism is true and there is no God and everything is just material, then you don’t really have thoughts, you just have chemical reactions set in motion a long time ago. If that sounds silly it is because that is the end result of your worldview.

      Of course, toddlers have one thing that really distinguishes from fetuses: They’ve been born.

      So what? They are human beings just like the unborn, just at a different stage of life. How does a short trip down the vagina change the worth of a human being?

      And if the parents want to kill the toddlers, will you adopt them all? How much of your money and time will you devote to them? Or do you not care about them after all?

      And it buggers my mind when Christians make the argument that we shouldn’t ‘take my neighbors’ money to pay for it. . . . Even the early church was communal, sharing their goods.

      It buggers my mind when people think taking money at the point of a gun counts as charity on their part. The early church shared their goods, they weren’t taken from them. Read the book of Acts.

      Like

    5. The toddler example is pretty arbitrary and misses the point: How many children have you adopted? I’m not saying a Christian has to adopt every kid. But every anti-abortion activist should adopt at least one. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable view

      Actually, the example was perfect. Toddlers are human beings at a particular stage of development, just as a human fetus is.

      And you obviously didn’t read my link as you claimed — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/pro-lifers-dont-care-about-kids-after-they-are-born/

      So I’ll repeat this part: Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well. Either that, or give up espousing their pro-choice views. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.

      Think about it. It may seem subtle at first, but it is a completely consistent argument. Pro-lifers don’t think it should be an option to kill the unborn, so pro-choicers use the false logic that we can’t complain about abortion if we won’t adopt all the kids and raise them to adulthood. But if the woman decides to choose life, then the pro-choicer would have the same moral obligation to raise the kids.

      So how many kids do you require pro-choicers to adopt before they can speak their views? (that’s rhetorical; your 15 minutes just lapsed)

      Again, pointing out the moral evil of abortion does not obligate one to adopt all the babies. But pro-lifers do help anyway. A lot. And they do it with their own time and money, not their neighbors’.

      Like

  6. A false teacher commented on the post linked to above and said that “. . . behavior that is NOT condemned in the Bible (gay marriage – condemned 0% of the time.)”

    That’s the kind of distortion you can expect from them. Using that logic, he could participate in gay-bashing, because Jesus condemned that 0% of the time.

    Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage was, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them, and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews.

    The good news is that when people use those arguments you can be pretty confident you are talking to a false teacher. The wolves aren’t bothering to put on their sheep’s clothing much anymore.

    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