Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[GentleDove]

The Bible teaches that a wife should respect, love, serve, counsel, and submit to her husband. The Bible also teaches that a husband should love, cherish, protect, understand, listen to and provide for his wife.

Where specifically does the Bible teach that a husband should listen to or understand his wife?

First, I want to clarify that in my summary above, by “listen to� I did not mean “obey.� The Bible makes clear that sometimes a man should listen to his wife’s counsel/advice and sometimes he should not (Eve, Sarai, Jezebel, etc.). The deciding factor is whether the counsel she is dispensing is virtuous and contains godly wisdom or not.

I meant “listen to� in the sense of “hear out� or “consider the feelings/thoughts of.� That a godly (Christian) man should listen to, understand, and consider his wife is commanded in the 1 Peter 3:7 scripture I referenced:

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7, NASB)

In addition, the Bible (in 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5, etc.) makes clear that marriage is patterned on the relationship between Christ and His Church, which is called “the Beloved.� Part of the relationship between Christ and His Church, is that Christ wants the Church to pray to Him, to go to Him with every burden and problem, to receive comfort, understanding, cherishing, and guidance from Him. Christ does not “obey� the Church’s prayers, but He does promise to always listen to Christians when we cry out to Him and to take our prayers into His consideration. This seems valid, especially given the 1 Peter 3:7 passage above. Peter is saying “if you won’t listen to (hear) your wife, don’t expect God to listen to (hear) your prayers.�

[JoeyKnothead]

Hi Friends, 1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter. It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom. at 11 it shows that they didnt do these things anymore, they put it behind them to serve God the way he requires. Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts. Repentence is taught throughout Gods word. It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc- That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23-- these are ones who are told they are christians he is speaking to. Ones who were told they were saved. Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

So, you have proven that a writer of a New Testament book believed that men having unnatural sexual relations would not enter into God's kingdom.

Next step. Show that this writer was correct in his assessment.

Hi, Until Gods kingdom arrives his assessment cannot be proven.

How convenient - Do as I say or face punishment at some indeterminate time in the future.

I gotta wonder what some folks think constitutes evidence.

Faith is what a person of God lives by. I dont think its a convienence, reality shows that Gods kingdom isnt fully ruling the earth at this point in time. until one can see those events occur, one cannot possibly prove it. But it will be too late then, so one must go by Faith, there is no other choice.

It is convenient because it allows folks to condemn others based on tales with no evidence. It allows folks to discriminate against others in the here and now, and postpone any responsibility until after they die.

[kjw]

Hi, If folks are taught or practice discrimination, they know not the true God, or just dont listen and apply his truth. No man can say that one or this ones sin is worse than my sin, or this race or that race is worse than my race. Not in reality anyways. But yes it occurs every single day by those who think they are saved. or are serving God the way he requires. Really this world has turned into a sad place.

[McCulloch]

The Bible teaches that a wife should respect, love, serve, counsel, and submit to her husband. The Bible also teaches that a husband should love, cherish, protect, understand, listen to and provide for his wife.

Where specifically does the Bible teach that a husband should listen to or understand his wife?

First, I want to clarify that in my summary above, by “listen to� I did not mean “obey.�

That is understood. It is wives who are instructed to submit and obey, not husbands.

The Bible makes clear that sometimes a man should listen to his wife’s counsel/advice and sometimes he should not (Eve, Sarai, Jezebel, etc.). The deciding factor is whether the counsel she is dispensing is virtuous and contains godly wisdom or not.

I agree that the the writers of the Bible provide numerous examples where a husband did badly by listening to his wife. But where is it in the Bible that it is made clear that a man should listen to his wife's counsel or advice. I seem to have missed the reference.

I meant “listen to� in the sense of “hear out� or “consider the feelings/thoughts of.� That a godly (Christian) man should listen to, understand, and consider his wife is commanded in the 1 Peter 3:7 scripture I referenced:

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7, NASB)

I am familiar with this misogynist passage in the New Testament. It takes a bit of mental gymnastics to read this as the husband should ever take his wife's counsel.

In addition, the Bible (in 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5, etc.) makes clear that marriage is patterned on the relationship between Christ and His Church, which is called “the Beloved.� Part of the relationship between Christ and His Church, is that Christ wants the Church to pray to Him, to go to Him with every burden and problem, to receive comfort, understanding, cherishing, and guidance from Him. Christ does not “obey� the Church’s prayers, but He does promise to always listen to Christians when we cry out to Him and to take our prayers into His consideration. This seems valid, especially given the 1 Peter 3:7 passage above. Peter is saying “if you won’t listen to (hear) your wife, don’t expect God to listen to (hear) your prayers.�

Does God take our advise? Does God heed our counsel? Are Christians not told to submit their will to the will of God? Then, if the man is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the man, as the New Testament teaches, what place has a woman's advice to her husband, according to authentic Christian teachings?

[MagusYanam]

Okay, I think I misread an earlier post of yours. I read “…kingdom of heaven as it was practiced in the world of the time…� instead of “…kingdom of heaven marriage as it was practiced in the world of the time…� So, I withdraw my argument against something you never said. Sorry!

That's quite alright - my writing can be a little obtuse; I'll try to clarify when I can.

Otherwise, your point, it seemed to me, was that Jesus in His reply to the Sadducees was lifting the prohibition against sexual immorality, as defined in the OT. (Thus, implicitly, the prohibition against homosexuality is also lifted by Jesus.) However, Jesus did not do that. He was basically saying that it won’t even be an issue in the resurrection because there won’t be marriage in the resurrection.

Ehhhh... not exactly. Jesus was attacking the entire moral construct of the Sadducees (a moral construct which treated women as the property of some man or another), and was replacing it with a higher morality which was more centred on the content of a sexual relationship than on the form. It must be remembered that, unlike the Sadducees, Jesus saw men and women as equals.

I agree that some forms of marriage as practiced in the Bible were oppressive to women, and that polygamy, while perhaps not “oppressive� to women, certainly caused a lot of domestic unhappiness, as a perversion of God’s prescription of marriage being between one man and one women (until one of them dies). Paul wonderfully reiterates and expands on the marriage relationship in the NT; however, I believe he is upholding the commands of God regarding marriage from the OT, not disputing them. The practice of polygamy in the Bible is more descriptive of what some people did than prescriptive of what God commanded all people to do.

Agreed completely that much of this was descriptive rather than prescriptive. I thought this was implicit in my last post, but my apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Well, homosexuality was prohibited (by God in the Bible) in the OT and the NT both, across thousands of years and different cultures. Homosexuality existed in both OT and NT times, and the Bible is consistent about calling it sin.

Child abuse—and homosexual behavior—was criminalized in those cultures that had a Biblical view of sexual crime, such as the United States and other post-Greco-Roman Western societies. However, with Biblical morality condemned as “oppressive� these last hundred years or so (and especially the last forty years) in the United States, we find child sexual abuse—and homosexual behavior—on the rise.

Historically speaking, the age-of-consent laws haven't always been there even in post-Greco-Roman Western societies - in mediaeval times child marriage was very common, particularly among the upper classes. And there is no way to ascertain how common homosexuality was in ages past because the social norms against admitting to it were incredibly strong, so your second point seems unverifiable.

As with everything else in the Bible, though, context counts. Homosexuality was tied to paedophilia in the Pauline letters, and to idolatry and pagan rituals in the OT. Homosexual behaviour has, since those times, lost its association with child abuse and idolatry.

As to organisations like NAMBLA, I'm sorry, but you lost all credibility there by trying to associate the entire gay rights movement with them. NAMBLA is nowhere near the mainstream of the gay rights movement - the opposition to legalised paedophilia from within the gay rights movement has been very well-documented; the Wikipedia article on NAMBLA even makes this clear.

I don’t understand why you believe homosexuality is equivalent in some way to being poor. Biblically, homosexuality is a sin, and being poor is not a sin. Does this have something to do with "existential facticity"? Would you also say the poor choose to be poor, and therefore it would be wrong to try to help them raise their standard of living?

Protestant Christians (specifically those in the Calvinist strain) didn't always think so. For a very long time in Protestant Europe and in the United States, being poor was considered a sin! Indeed, it was for a very long time considered the outward sign of a reprobate and morally deficient inward nature, and that God had bestowed wealth upon the elect believers as a sign of his favour.

My point was just the opposite - homosexual orientation is not a choice. I didn't have a choice in the matter of being a heterosexual who is attracted to women, I simply am - that attraction is a factitious element of my existence. Homosexuals are cut from the same human cloth, with the same drives (just toward different people). What you do with those drives is a choice, though - and I see no reason to legally oppress anyone and limit their autonomy simply because they are different from me (whether they come from another race, class, gender or orientation).

As I understand it, existentialism is a philosophy that begins with a sense of disorientation, confusion, and alienation in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world, beyond what meaning we give to it.

However, this is not the Biblical view of the world or the human being’s place in it. Biblically, the universe is meaningful and rational because the sovereign creator God, Who exists outside us as individuals, superintends it by His providence. God has not left us alone to determine our own identity in the universe apart from His objective standard. God, in His mercy, ends for the Christian the alienation from Him caused by our sin.

Existentialism is a philosophy that begins with the subject - the individual human being together with all its feeling, thought and action and with all its flaws and failures. Existentialism arose from Christianity as the rejection of the idea that humans can attain perfection merely through rational thought, without attending to all the other commitments of which the human soul is capable.

And if you think that God hasn't left us alone to determine our own identity in the universe, you haven't been reading Genesis carefully enough! God did not prevent us by force from eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil - God allowed us the freedom to choose. (It is also worth noting that after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve experienced this very disorientation, confusion and alienation from God.)

According to the Bible, we as individuals do not create each our own reality of “god� (even if we decide to “choose� the Biblical God) by imposing our idea of him on our construct of reality. No wonder an existentialist has so much angst, if his response to and responsibility for the projection of the “god� he chooses in an attempt to impose meaning on the universe all lies on his shoulders! That’s too heavy a burden to bear, in my view.

And if “god� is just a willful imposition of one’s “god�-idea, which only exists as something meaningful to that individual in a meaningless universe, then it’s just a sham. He’s his own “great and powerful Oz� behind the curtain, pulling the levers, and on some level he knows that. (Of course, an existentialist would just carry on through the absurd meaninglessness of his own attempt at creating his own meaning.)

You may find it too heavy a burden to bear, but it is only the burden of being human. It is only as heavy or light as you choose to make it.

The Christian in modernity is often forced into viewing her own religion (and thus, herself) as an artefact, as part of some larger, grand scheme - and will often do this to appease and justify herself to a worldly establishment which is hostile to what she has chosen. Existentialist neo-orthodoxy provides this individual Christian an answer: what she has chosen leaves her free from justifying herself to a 'rational' order outside of her - only to the living God in whom she can rest transparent along with all of her choices and flaws and errors.

The Gospel cannot be justified in rational terms. There is no external reason to which the Christian can appeal to force non-believers to accept Christ as Saviour and as the living God made manifest in human history - and any attempt to force others into such a false external reason merely demonstrates the weakness of her own faith. This is all that existentialism claims.

The Gospel is that God loved us and chose us, not that we loved and chose Him.

And what is greater demonstration of God's love of us and his choice of us, than that we are free to choose?

Under existentialism, in following “him,� one is only following oneself. Being sincere is no good, if you’re sincerely wrong. I know that within the existentialist worldview, reality is what you make of it. But Biblically, reality is objective and meaningful and true and knowable. For example, the existentialist phrase “true for me� relies on a perversion of the word “true.� To say, “this is true for me� is just another way of saying “I believe this.� If a doctor tells you that you have brain cancer, would you say, “well, that’s true for you, but it’s not true for me�? Of course not. Truth is objective and outside ourselves and our will.

Harrison Ford said it best in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: 'Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.' Fact is objective, truth is not. The Christian deals ultimately with truth, but not by denying fact - the existentially sincere Christian would see denial of brain cancer (a factitious state of the world) as spiritually unhealthy. Likewise, denial of homosexuality as a factitious element of a person's existence is spiritually unhealthy.

But the Bible deals with truth, and it is not objective. Torah is worthless without its chosen people to read it and call it their own. Likewise, the rest of Scripture is worthless without an audience, and the Jesus of the Gospel is always asking the reader, 'who do YOU say that I am?' - the Christian must view Scripture, and his fellows in interpretation, as his ready interlocutors. Viewing Scripture as an artefact to be dissected (as too many liberals do) or as an idol to be bowed to (as too many conservatives do) is ABUSE of Scripture, and such abuse is always to the detriment of the (potential) believer.

The Gospel is all about overcoming the “factual conditions� of our sin through faith in Jesus Christ (faith which God gives us) (1 Jn. 5:4), not through faith in one’s self, one’s existence, one’s freedom, and one’s responsibility, and all the consequences—even hell—no matter how existentially “authentic� that would be.

Existentialism would have it - and Christians must have it! - that faith is choice. Belief in Jesus Christ is meaningless if it is not of one's existence and one's freedom and one's responsibility - no one else can believe Christ for you, and no one else can have a relationship with Christ on your behalf.

Being black or being poor is not immoral, unlike homosexuality (according to the Bible).

It cannot be moral or immoral if it is a fact of existence which is not of our choosing. As I said before, I did not choose to be a heterosexual; that's a natural element of my existence which I can't change and no one - heterosexual or homosexual - will convince me otherwise. You can't choose to be homosexual, any more than you can choose to be black or choose to be born to poor parents. Indeed, I think that those who fear homosexuality are merely demonstrating their own insecurity in their sexual identities, to everyone's detriment but most grievously to their own.

[GentleDove]

From Page 6 Post 55:
First let me say I 'preciate GentleDove's position as it relates to her theology. By no means do I consider her position as anything but an honest take, devoid of the hatred this topic so often brings up.

Thanks, joeyknuccione, I appreciate you saying that. I’ve enjoyed “sparring� with you.

You seem to be arguing here for an impartial standard of justice. But if there is no God, then why should your subjective opinion of “impartiality� and “justice� have any persuasiveness to me at all?

I'm arguing for an equal standard of judgement. Where the state issues privileges it should not discriminate based on religious notions of what one's (unprovable) god thinks.

I am also arguing for an equal standard of judgment. I think we both agree with “equal;� we just don’t agree on the standard.

But why “shouldn’t� the state discriminate based on religious notions? How do you prove the morality of that statement?

Why would someone’s opinion of the “right� of the state to give a marriage license have any hold on me?
If my opinion is that the state has no “right� to give out marriage licenses, then it’s my opinion against other opinions, and I decide that my opinion wins. Also, I define marriage my own way.

This is exactly what some theists are doing to others - forcing their opinion onto them, but in a discriminatory fashion.

And you’re discriminating against theists by "forcing" your opinion onto them (that they “may� not discriminate).

Why shouldn’t three women and a 5 year old boy marry a Doberman pincer?

Because a 5 year old and a Pincer can't be reasonably assumed to offer informed consent. The three women should be able to declare themselves.

Here again, you evidence a need to insert a “moral� standard or check on children or animals being married. You write “should.� But where is this “should� coming from? How is your opinion transcendent and universal such that your opinion that a child and an animal are not capable of “informed consent,� whatever that means, “should� obligate the three women to not marry each other plus a boy and a dog?

Okay, this is really a red herring, and a bit off topic, so I will only address it this last time:

A five year old child lacks legal status to agree to marriage, based on reasonable assumptions they don't understand exactly what all marriage entails.

The Doberman just as well be the five year old.

The three women should be allowed to declare a marriage amongst themselves if the state is to afford legal protection to all, and refrain from religious based discrimination.

It wasn’t a red herring. I was trying to show something that one might not notice in himself, that he does have moral standards, which he takes for granted, to which, if pressed, he will want to hold others to, although he has no provable reason why anyone else should be obliged to obey his moral standards. In other words, the non-theist is in the same position regarding morality as the theist (humanly speaking).

It’s really none of your business (or the state’s or anyone else’s), if three women, a boy, and a dog get married.

It is because of the reasons stated above.

Yes, you would be willing to have the state intervene in such a “marriage,� because to allow it to happen or continue , even in someone else's "marriage," would violate your moral standards.

Warning...

I have read and understand the disclaimer.

Why should your pious, self-righteous, own personal, subjective opinion about “informed consent� restrict other peoples’ sex lives?

For the reasons stated above. I notice you didn't answer my question about whether you felt an eight year old girl could give informed consent.

I didn’t answer because I wanted you to answer. Deep down, it would really bother you; you might even be tempted to say it was “wrong.� Sometimes, we’re so busy opposing someone else’s viewpoint that we don’t examine what our own moral thresholds are, where we would “draw the line.�

My answer is: No, I don’t think an 8 year old girl could give informed consent. However, as a Christian, that wouldn’t be my basis, or at least not my sole basis, for thinking such a “marriage� wrong.

What is your opinion or the shared opinion of any other group of people, to overturn what they have decided for themselves is all marriage could be or ever “should� be?

Aren't you doing the same by advocating against gay marriage? Or in addressing homosexuality as an abomination?

My point is that we should all seek the maximum amount of freedom for all ("all" here being adults engaging in sex or marriage).

I understand where you're coming from. My point is that if you don’t concede the universal morality of the Bible, then at best all you have is dueling personal opinions, equally arbitrary and equally unprovable as the standard of morality everyone “should� adhere to.

Are you saying they don’t have a “right� to love each other? Are you going to try to impose your own, subjective definition of “love� on other human beings? Who are you to declare what someone’s “rights� are or whose “consents� are deemed by you to be valued? How arbitrary!

That's kinda what we all do when we debate for restrictions on any class of people. My position is such restrictions should be kept to a minimum, and as a matter of government should not be tied to unprovable claims about what an unprovable god thinks.

Yes, we do all do that. And then civil government should equally not be tied to your (or anyone’s) unprovable claims of what “morality� is, including who should and should not be discriminated against.

If there are billions of definitions of marriage, then isn’t it silly to have “the government� hand out marriage licenses at all? Anyone could and “should� marry anyone or anything, with or without “consent,� or any other arbitrary, subjective, “moral imposition.�

Fair 'nuff, but we can't escape the fact the government is in the business of marriage licenses. As such, I contend we should not discriminate against otherwise harmless human beings based on what someone claims their preferred god wants.

Unless of course such claims could actually be proven.

Even then, I'd prefer rebelling against any god that is so petty he'd get bent out of shape over homosexuals.

I understand your opinion, but I’m not persuaded by your unproven opinion of morality regarding marriage, discrimination, or my God. So I’ll stick to my “unproven� opinion. Looks like a stalemate.

Then you withdraw your “moral� opinion that “informed consent� is necessary to have a marriage? It is not “sinful� or “immoral� for three women to marry a dog and a boy? It is not “sinful� or “immoral� for a man to marry 6,000 8-year-old girls?

Can we please drop the pedophilia/bestiality red herring?

I asked before, I ask again, do you think eight year olds are able to give informed consent?

It wasn’t a red herring (though I may have been beating a dead horse—I didn’t remember repeating myself so much in my earlier post). I was pressing you to examine your own notions of universal morality, which you do have, even though you might not explicitly admit it.

It’s true that I don’t think 8 year olds can give informed consent, but I have a reason beyond my own arbitrary standard for thinking that would be a problem when it comes to entering into marriage.

Can GentleDove offer verifiable evidence his (sorry, her) proposed God has a monopoly on ethics or morality?

The impossibility of the contrary. If there is no moral, transcendent, creator God Who made humankind in His image
who is capable of revealing Himself through non-physical (spiritual) means…
Verification for [all] the rest of the many claims in that paragraph?

I was stating something conditional, indicated by use of the word “if,� asking you to consider something hypothetically, to see the internal consistency of the Biblical worldview.

Yet that isn’t what we find in reality.

You make claims, but offer no way to verify you speak truth.

You’ve admitted that you have a sense of morality that, although you can’t explain why, you believe the state should enforce on everyone (no discrimination against homosexuals should be allowed, “informed consent� should be elicited before marriage should be allowed to take place, etc.). This is what we find in reality, not “no morality,� which is all that could possibly derive from a godless and amoral universe.

How can a non-Christian proceed on the basis that tomorrow will be like today or that a similar scientific experiment under similar circumstances will have similar results? Only by borrowing the Christian worldview on this point (and many others).

Because we can reasonably assume similar conditions (sunrise, taxes, Chevy's breaking down) of the past will present themselves tomorrow.

Okay, now I really was going off topic, but thanks for humoring me.

The problem with your answer is that it begs the question. It assumes that the future will be like the past to prove the assumption that the future will be like the past.

If I post in these forums tomorrow, can we say I accurately predicted tomorrow based on recent past events?

Yes, but, rationally, you’ll only be able to say that tomorrow. You would have no reason to think that today, even if in the past the future was like the past.

Anyway, I can’t remember why I brought this up; something about chaos. Oh, the fact that we don’t find utter chaos around us, which is evidence the Christian God exists. One example of order, assumed by both Christians and non-Christians is the principle of induction, or the uniformity of nature. Yet David Hume and Bertrand Russell (non-Christians) were skeptical that people (by that they meant non-Christians) have any underlying basis for assuming the principle of induction.

And if those twins are, in his judgment incapable of “informed consent,� then it’s another man’s “evil.� Yet if there’s no God, nothing obligates anyone to anyone’s opinion of “evil,� not even to his own opinion of “evil.�

Exactly. You imply that "homosexuality as an abomination" is evil, others don't.

Can you offer verifiable evidence for your claim that homosexuality is considered an abomination by your preferred god?

If not, I contend what two otherwise legit folks do in the comfort of their own is up to them, and not some busy-body, and certainly not the government.

Yes, my God revealed that He considers homosexuality to be an abomination in the Bible, the book in which He verbally reveals Himself, His nature, and His standards. Your “alternative morality� is nothing more than personal preference, so I am under no obligation to subscribe to your personal moral preference, any more than, in your view, you are under any obligation to subscribe to what you view as my personal moral preference.

The Biblical principle that everyone reaps what he sows is well-known to be universally true.

Only in the most vague of senses. Does GentleDove contend folks will be somehow punished after their deaths by this god?

Oh, I was thinking earthly consequences when I wrote that.

Or try obeying Him (according to the context of all of Scripture and the Christian worldview), and see what happens. If you’re anything like every person I’ve known who sincerely...

Operative word here being sincerely. Any failure here can be dismissed as an insincere effort.

Well, I wasn’t planning to check up on you, or anything. I’m sure I wouldn’t know if you sincerely tried or not.

But you also wish to restrict the “rights� of others. Who “verified� to you that “informed consent� should be the standard or morality for everyone? (And don't tell me you read about "informed consent" in a book!

Exactly. We learn through various means - even religious - what we consider acceptable or not.

What I ask is for theists to offer verifiable evidence for claims a god considers homosexuals an abomination.

You can verify it from the Bible. If you mean provide evidence which you will accept that the Bible is the Word of God, then I can’t provide that evidence. Only the Word of God and the working of the Holy Spirit in you can verify for you that the Bible is the Word of God.

To me, man on man homosexuality is an "abomination" merely because I think it is "icky"*. I have no other reason to base this claim, and so would never expect the government to enforce my opinion based solely on an "ick" factor.
*And so really only consider it an "abomination" if I engage in doing it.

Yet you do seem to believe your opinion is a basis for the claim that calling homosexuality an abomination is wrong.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 8 Post 76

>minimal quote mining to reduce duplication<

I'm arguing for an equal standard of judgement. Where the state issues privileges it should not discriminate based on religious notions of what one's (unprovable) god thinks.

I am also arguing for an equal standard of judgment. I think we both agree with “equal;� we just don’t agree on the standard.

But why “shouldn’t� the state discriminate based on religious notions? How do you prove the morality of that statement?

Here disallowing gay marriage (and with the OP in mind, really a few other points folks don't need to be told automatically), is discrimination based on who someone loves.
There is a moral position in the Constitution alone that says all men are created equal. With this in mind, doesn't it seem unequal for the state to determine who gets to declare their love for another?

This is exactly what some theists are doing to others - forcing their opinion onto them, but in a discriminatory fashion.

And you’re discriminating against theists by "forcing" your opinion onto them (that they “may� not discriminate).

How does gay marriage discriminate against you adhering to your religious beliefs? No one is asking you to be the preacher.

I understand you may say such as "because God said so", and hold that opinion with the utmost sincerity. My issue here is we have no way of actually verifying this God, or what this God's opinion is on the matter.

Then we also have a question of who is this God to tell humans who we can and can't love.

It wasn’t a red herring. I was trying to show something that one might not notice in himself, that he does have moral standards, which he takes for granted, to which, if pressed, he will want to hold others to, although he has no provable reason why anyone else should be obliged to obey his moral standards. In other words, the non-theist is in the same position regarding morality as the theist (humanly speaking).

Certainly. You appeal to a God you can't show exists, and I appeal to common decency between individuals.

"You marry who you want, just don't tell others who to marry". The inverse is just as sound from a personal freedom perspective, "You don't marry who you don't want, and others won't marry who they don't want."

Doesn't this seem like a reasonable, rational way to think about how a planet with some billions of people can get along with one another?

Yes, you would be willing to have the state intervene in such a “marriage,� because to allow it to happen or continue , even in someone else's "marriage," would violate your moral standards.

Do you think it rational to think dogs and small children actually understand what all is involved if they were to get married to today's grown adults?

Why should your pious, self-righteous, own personal, subjective opinion about “informed consent� restrict other peoples’ sex lives?

I contend we place the least restrictions, and still have a world where grown people are not abusing others.

My answer is: No, I don’t think an 8 year old girl could give informed consent. However, as a Christian, that wouldn’t be my basis, or at least not my sole basis, for thinking such a “marriage� wrong.

Thank you. Can we say we can agree as grown adults that there is something acceptably odd about adults and children, and so such is no longer an issue regarding grown adults and gay marriage?

I understand where you're coming from. My point is that if you don’t concede the universal morality of the Bible, then at best all you have is dueling personal opinions, equally arbitrary and equally unprovable as the standard of morality everyone “should� adhere to.

I don't concede a "universal morality" in the Bible on the grounds it can't be shown the proposed God actually has an opinion on the matter. All we have are humans at best speculating about their God's opinions.

Yes, we do all do that. And then civil government should equally not be tied to your (or anyone’s) unprovable claims of what “morality� is, including who should and should not be discriminated against.

Exactly. However, doesn't it stand to reason that allowing a grown adult to marry who they love, but preventing another from doing so is inherently unfair?

I understand your opinion, but I’m not persuaded by your unproven opinion of morality regarding marriage, discrimination, or my God. So I’ll stick to my “unproven� opinion. Looks like a stalemate.

Perhaps for us two. Part of my intent here is to help the observer see that "God don't like it" can't be shown to be a true statement.

I was pressing you to examine your own notions of universal morality, which you do have, even though you might not explicitly admit it.

And you press well for a theist. I don't contend my morality is 'universal' so much as I appeal to common decency in our relations with one another, and in respect to our government's relations to its citizens.

I was stating something conditional, indicated by use of the word “if,� asking you to consider something hypothetically, to see the internal consistency of the Biblical worldview.

Given what I consider to be the complete lack of verifiable evidence for God, and this God seemingly not happy with some of my fellow human beings, I'd say there's no need to think in hypotheticals.

Either we allow folks to choose their own to love, or we don't. God would be equally free to decide for Himself.

This is what we find in reality, not “no morality,� which is all that could possibly derive from a godless and amoral universe.

This is really a sad way to look at those with whom you disagree.

I'm not advocating for the complete removal of moral concepts from society. What I am arguing for is these concepts to be the least restrictive possible.

>snip an off topic<

Oh, the fact that we don’t find utter chaos around us, which is evidence the Christian God exists. One example of order, assumed by both Christians and non-Christians is the principle of induction, or the uniformity of nature.

Order, and "uniformity of nature" are wholly relative positions, dependant on human interpretation.

Your “alternative morality� is nothing more than personal preference, so I am under no obligation to subscribe to your personal moral preference, any more than, in your view, you are under any obligation to subscribe to what you view as my personal moral preference.

So don't you see that preventing one from marrying who they love is inherently discriminatory?

If you mean provide evidence which you will accept that the Bible is the Word of God, then I can’t provide that evidence.

And therein lies the rub. Why would we discriminate against our fellow humans on the basis of the opinion of someone we can't show exists?

Only the Word of God and the working of the Holy Spirit in you can verify for you that the Bible is the Word of God.

Why would I care about the opinions of an entity that is placing capricious demands on my fellow humans, by having me discriminate against my own humans?

Yet you do seem to believe your opinion is a basis for the claim that calling homosexuality an abomination is wrong.

Not abomination as "handed down from God", but something I don't personally seek to engage in. What grown folks do on thier time is on them.

[colpal19]

The new testament pretty much completely changed all the rules from the old testament for Christians. Eye for an eye became turn the other cheek, don't cheat on your wife became don't even think about cheating on your wife, etc. In the new testament it does say that all love is pure and holy in the eyes of the lord.
Would this not also count for homosexuals as well? Besides who are they hurting by their personal life-style? No one. Yeah uhh... yep no one at all, no one dies, no one starves, no one launches nuclear missiles around the world...etc. Who cares if they get married? Its not going to destroy the world! Kim Jong Il is going to do that, but does anyone pay attention to that? No, they're more worried about keeping two people who they don't even know from being happy. It makes no sense. I would think that an all-kind and loving God, which most if not all Christians tend to believe in, would be thrilled that two of his creations can be truly happy together. Right?

By the way, anthoratheisthere, that was the funniest thing I've ever read, good job man!

[kjw]

The new testament pretty much completely changed all the rules from the old testament for Christians. Eye for an eye became turn the other cheek, don't cheat on your wife became don't even think about cheating on your wife, etc. In the new testament it does say that all love is pure and holy in the eyes of the lord.
Would this not also count for homosexuals as well? Besides who are they hurting by their personal life-style? No one. Yeah uhh... yep no one at all, no one dies, no one starves, no one launches nuclear missiles around the world...etc. Who cares if they get married? Its not going to destroy the world! Kim Jong Il is going to do that, but does anyone pay attention to that? No, they're more worried about keeping two people who they don't even know from being happy. It makes no sense. I would think that an all-kind and loving God, which most if not all Christians tend to believe in, would be thrilled that two of his creations can be truly happy together. Right?

By the way, anthoratheisthere, that was the funniest thing I've ever read, good job man!

Hi Friend, yes a new covenant arrived with Jesus. But the nt teaches that men who lie with men, or kept for unnatural purposes will not inherit Gods kingdom (1 corinthians 6: 9-11 ) that obviously means women also. besides many other reasons one will not inherit Gods kingdom. People who have sex out of marriage, people having sex while married to some other. drunkards ( probably drugs to ) idolotors, revelers, etc. at verse 11 it says-- these things are what you were ( past tense= repentence- totally stopping the things God hates ) to be washed clean. Seems to me that is the majority of the earth. Just like Noahs day.

[colpal19]

Hi Friend, yes a new covenant arrived with Jesus. But the nt teaches that men who lie with men, or kept for unnatural purposes will not inherit Gods kingdom (1 corinthians 6: 9-11 ) that obviously means women also. besides many other reasons one will not inherit Gods kingdom. People who have sex out of marriage, people having sex while married to some other. drunkards ( probably drugs to ) idolotors, revelers, etc. at verse 11 it says-- these things are what you were ( past tense= repentence- totally stopping the things God hates ) to be washed clean. Seems to me that is the majority of the earth. Just like Noahs day.

Yes, the verse does talk about homosexuality, but this book of the bible is written by Paul, an imperfect man capable of mistakes and bias. No where in the entire bible does Jesus, the son of God, perfect, and incapable of bias, declare homosexuality to be an abomination or a sin. Personally, I don't believe there is a God and the matter of homosexuality is more humanitarian than anything else. As moral humans we should strive to create as little suffering as possible. Suffering is the opposite of happiness, and these people are not happy. Hey, but thanks for being so polite in your messages. Most people get so up tight about stuff like this. Its good to find people who are willing to talk about it with out a rise in temper. Thanks.

Off Topic Note: The verse does call homosexuality out by name, but in regards to pre-marriage sex, the verse actually says, "...the sexually immoral..." which is open to interpretation. Actually, sex out of wedlock is never mentioned by name in the bible. If I'm wrong, please let me know along with the verse. In the near future I'm going to open a discussion about this in more detail.