Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Liriena]

Or the firsborns of Egypt.

Or David's son.

God really isn't making a compelling case for his benevolence, is he?

[Anachronous Rex]

Or David's son.

God really isn't making a compelling case for his benevolence, is he?

It's actually all just a big misunderstanding. You see, god is actually Quetzalcoatl, and he just can't do shit without a sacrifice. The blood must flow. That's why he had to kill himself to forgive us.

[Norcroft]

wow ive been following this thread for a bit and I gotta say, besides all the mudslinging Ive learned a lot from both sides.
From the anti-gay marriage to the pro-gay marriage crowds. Along with the fallacies from both sides.
Heltonia's position was from the beginning "Gays are bad because the bible said so".
Everyone else's was "No its not because the Bible has some vicious stuff in it which means its not valid."

Both arguments harbor their fallacies with their opening statements. I'll leave it up to both sides to dissect what it is that I see.
Feel free to correct me.

For me personally. I've got no problem with it. Interesting read though.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

wow ive been following this thread for a bit and I gotta say, besides all the mudslinging Ive learned a lot from both sides.
From the anti-gay marriage to the pro-gay marriage crowds. Along with the fallacies from both sides.
Heltonia's position was from the beginning "Gays are bad because the bible said so".
Everyone else's was "No its not because the Bible has some vicious stuff in it which means its not valid."

Both arguments harbor their fallacies with their opening statements. I'll leave it up to both sides to dissect what it is that I see.
Feel free to correct me.

For me personally. I've got no problem with it. Interesting read though.

You're taking only one example of an argument put forth by the "Everyone else" crowd, and mischaracterizing it at that. Please actually read the very specific and thorough refutations of every single point that he's attempted to make.

[Norcroft]

wow ive been following this thread for a bit and I gotta say, besides all the mudslinging Ive learned a lot from both sides.
From the anti-gay marriage to the pro-gay marriage crowds. Along with the fallacies from both sides.
Heltonia's position was from the beginning "Gays are bad because the bible said so".
Everyone else's was "No its not because the Bible has some vicious stuff in it which means its not valid."

Both arguments harbor their fallacies with their opening statements. I'll leave it up to both sides to dissect what it is that I see.
Feel free to correct me.

For me personally. I've got no problem with it. Interesting read though.

You're taking only one example of an argument put forth by the "Everyone else" crowd, and mischaracterizing it at that. Please actually read the very specific and thorough refutations of every single point that he's attempted to make.

Honestly I dont have the time. This is just the sense Im getting.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You're taking only one example of an argument put forth by the "Everyone else" crowd, and mischaracterizing it at that. Please actually read the very specific and thorough refutations of every single point that he's attempted to make.

Honestly I dont have the time. This is just the sense Im getting.

That's fine. However, that also means that your opinion isn't a fully informed one. Right now what you're seeing is the tail end of an argument that's been going on for pages, and we're essentially chewing on the crumbs left on the table.

[Fnordgasm 5]

wow ive been following this thread for a bit and I gotta say, besides all the mudslinging Ive learned a lot from both sides.
From the anti-gay marriage to the pro-gay marriage crowds. Along with the fallacies from both sides.
Heltonia's position was from the beginning "Gays are bad because the bible said so".
Everyone else's was "No its not because the Bible has some vicious stuff in it which means its not valid."

Both arguments harbor their fallacies with their opening statements. I'll leave it up to both sides to dissect what it is that I see.
Feel free to correct me.

For me personally. I've got no problem with it. Interesting read though.

I think you've misunderstood. It's not about whether the Bible is wrong or right but whether Heltonia is right to accept one passage as law while disregarding the passages which he disagrees with. By not applying the same standards across the entirety of the Bible he opens himself up to accusations that he opposes homosexuality due to his own prejudice and is merely using the bible to justify it.The point of contention is not whether bible is right but whether or not Heltonia actually follows it.

[Norcroft]

wow ive been following this thread for a bit and I gotta say, besides all the mudslinging Ive learned a lot from both sides.
From the anti-gay marriage to the pro-gay marriage crowds. Along with the fallacies from both sides.
Heltonia's position was from the beginning "Gays are bad because the bible said so".
Everyone else's was "No its not because the Bible has some vicious stuff in it which means its not valid."

Both arguments harbor their fallacies with their opening statements. I'll leave it up to both sides to dissect what it is that I see.
Feel free to correct me.

For me personally. I've got no problem with it. Interesting read though.

I think you've misunderstood. It's not about whether the Bible is wrong or right but whether Heltonia is right to accept one passage as law while disregarding the passages which he disagrees with. By not applying the same standards across the entirety of the Bible he opens himself up to accusations whether he opposes homosexuality due to his own prejudice and is merely using the bible to justify it.

That raises the question, why do so many religious folk see homosexuality as a bad thing?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think you've misunderstood. It's not about whether the Bible is wrong or right but whether Heltonia is right to accept one passage as law while disregarding the passages which he disagrees with. By not applying the same standards across the entirety of the Bible he opens himself up to accusations whether he opposes homosexuality due to his own prejudice and is merely using the bible to justify it.

That raises the question, why do so many religious folk see homosexuality as a bad thing?

If I had to take an uneducated guess, I'd say that it has something to do with the fact that it's difficult to pass down property and titles through families when your son marries a guy, as that didn't lend itself to reproduction back in the day.

[Penguin Union Nation]

I thought it was the butt enzymes.

[Norcroft]

That raises the question, why do so many religious folk see homosexuality as a bad thing?

If I had to take an uneducated guess, I'd say that it has something to do with the fact that it's difficult to pass down property and titles through families when your son marries a guy, as that didn't lend itself to reproduction back in the day.

......implications unpleasant.

[Fnordgasm 5]

I think you've misunderstood. It's not about whether the Bible is wrong or right but whether Heltonia is right to accept one passage as law while disregarding the passages which he disagrees with. By not applying the same standards across the entirety of the Bible he opens himself up to accusations whether he opposes homosexuality due to his own prejudice and is merely using the bible to justify it.

That raises the question, why do so many religious folk see homosexuality as a bad thing?

Do you mean apart from the various passages prohibiting it or do you mean why do the uphold parts of the bible they agree with and disregard those that they don't?

[Norcroft]

That raises the question, why do so many religious folk see homosexuality as a bad thing?

Do you mean apart from the various passages prohibiting it or do you mean why do the uphold parts of the bible they agree with and disregard those that they don't?

that too honestly.

[Fnordgasm 5]

Do you mean apart from the various passages prohibiting it or do you mean why do the uphold parts of the bible they agree with and disregard those that they don't?

that too honestly.

Some may do better than others but people simply have a hard time of living up to the ideologies that they espouse whether religious, political or ethical.

[Norcroft]

that too honestly.

Some may do better than others but people simply have a hard time of living up to the ideologies that they espouse whether religious, political or ethical.

Religious people dont know what they're doing either then.

[Dimar]

Marriage should be between 2 people regardless of their sex. End of discussion.

This.

[Great Nepal]

Marriage should be between 2 people regardless of their sex. End of discussion.

This.

Why? I mean why two people rather than consenting people in general.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you mean apart from the various passages prohibiting it or do you mean why do the uphold parts of the bible they agree with and disregard those that they don't?

that too honestly.

Religions are alive and they evolve. When they first appear, they are very small - just a few people (usually) separating off from some previous religious group, or witnessing some new revelation.

In the religious ecosystem, the new entity wants to perpetuate it's memes. It does this by adapting to it's environment, by fighting other religions for the same territory, and by passing on it's memetic legacy.

Those that survive longest, tend to be those best adapted to whichever environmental niche they exist in - and those that most successfully pass on memetic material - and that requires transmission of the memes to new hosts, maintaining purity of the memetic code, and increasing the spread of the meme over others.

Thus, successful religions that have survived a long time are likely to often display a lot of the same survival characteristics - strong punishment for questioning authority or changing the message, a requirement that outsiders marry into the religion or a simple prohibition on marrying outsiders, and a series of prohibitions designed specifically to increase the number of children being born into the religion - such as limitations on non-marital intercourse, restrictions on 'non-productive' sex, and a demand that heirs be produced.

Thus, religions often tend to discourage homosexuality. Brainwashing children is the easiest way to increase numbers of adherents without compromising the message - and homosexuals tend to have less children. It's really pretty straightforward.

[Norcroft]

that too honestly.

Religions are alive and they evolve. When they first appear, they are very small - just a few people (usually) separating off from some previous religious group, or witnessing some new revelation.

In the religious ecosystem, the new entity wants to perpetuate it's memes. It does this by adapting to it's environment, by fighting other religions for the same territory, and by passing on it's memetic legacy.

Those that survive longest, tend to be those best adapted to whichever environmental niche they exist in - and those that most successfully pass on memetic material - and that requires transmission of the memes to new hosts, maintaining purity of the memetic code, and increasing the spread of the meme over others.

Thus, successful religions that have survived a long time are likely to often display a lot of the same survival characteristics - strong punishment for questioning authority or changing the message, a requirement that outsiders marry into the religion or a simple prohibition on marrying outsiders, and a series of prohibitions designed specifically to increase the number of children being born into the religion - such as limitations on non-marital intercourse, restrictions on 'non-productive' sex, and a demand that heirs be produced.

Thus, religions often tend to discourage homosexuality. Brainwashing children is the easiest way to increase numbers of adherents without compromising the message - and homosexuals tend to have less children. It's really pretty straightforward.

Dr. Bright is that you? I could almost swear I was reading an SCP article.

EDIT: Holy crap! Religion is a Keter-class Cognitohazard!

[Essos]

wow ive been following this thread for a bit and I gotta say, besides all the mudslinging Ive learned a lot from both sides.
From the anti-gay marriage to the pro-gay marriage crowds. Along with the fallacies from both sides.
Heltonia's position was from the beginning "Gays are bad because the bible said so".
Everyone else's was "No its not because the Bible has some vicious stuff in it which means its not valid."

Both arguments harbor their fallacies with their opening statements. I'll leave it up to both sides to dissect what it is that I see.
Feel free to correct me.

For me personally. I've got no problem with it. Interesting read though.

YOu appear to have misinterpreted our argument entirely. It is not the fact that the bible says some pretty terrible things, it's that he picks and chooses which terrible things to abide by and which ones to ignore based on what is most convenient to him. If he accepted and complied with everything the Bible tells you to do, he would at least have a decent case for because the Bible says so. He would still be wrong, because the Bible doesn't actually say what he wants it to say, it says something similar, but not the same.

As has been indicated previously, the passage he refers to is actually concerning purchasing the services of male prostitutes, not homosexuality as a thing.

[Essos]

just because I have a different set of beliefs it gives you no right to attack me for it.

You only see me as an enemy and warp everything I say to fill your perception. Theres no saving this thread.

No, we're trying to educate you. Ignorance is bad, mm'kay? We haven't warped anything you have said, because you haven't said anything that needs to be warped. You've just got some really terrible opinions.

[Risottia]

Or David's son.

God really isn't making a compelling case for his benevolence, is he?

Never forget Job.

[Tekania]

Government should just stay out of marriage. This works both ways. For one, it means same-sex marriage can happen. For two, if a pastor wasn't want to do any gay marriages, then he doesn't have. Everybody's rights are good, and no one should bitch.

Except, of course, they would. Because humans bitch. A lot.

Or government could stay in marriage, same-sex marriages can happen, and pastors don't have to do them (like they don't have to do any now).

[Menassa]

It seems we're all at an impasse here.

I've stated my beliefs and why homosexuality is wrong and is a sin.
I respectfully disagree.

Just because a lot has changed in the last 2000 years, it doesnt mean something back then isnt as true as it is right now. It seems to me this is the slippery slope where a lot of your acceptance for this stems from.
Be careful with that.

Being homosexual however is not a sin for you.... know your Bible.

[Flagsia]

This is stupid why do gay people want to get married .To have children or to show your love .
You can't have children and you do not need marriage to show your love for each other .