There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[Fisherking]

"LOS ANGELES, May 26 -- The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state"

California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban

[Goat]

"LOS ANGELES, May 26 -- The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state"

California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban

I also note that it held that the 18,000 marriages that were done are considered binding and legal.

And, curiously enough, the opinin of the court was

The 136-page majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, noted that it's not up to the court to determine whether the ban, known as Proposition 8, "is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals believe it should be a part of the California constitution," but rather "is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

Very curious to have to include that.

[Carico]

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Just because sin is natural doesn't mean that we should act on it and expect no consequences. Sex was obviously designed to propagate each species which is precisely why it's no coincidence that sex between a man and a woman results in offspring.

Anger is natural. Does that mean we should act on it?
Envy is natural. Does that mean we should encourage it?
Greed is natural. Does that mean we should encourage it?

That's why Jesus is the only solution to the sin problem. Otherwise, we humans act no better than the animals. But since, unlike animals, we have the capacity to understand values higher than bodily gratification, then not using that ability is a slap in the face to God and we humans. That's why God considers bodily gratification to be the lowest form of human behavior because we were created for much more than that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 19 Post 182:

>quote mining for clarity<

Sex was obviously designed to propagate each species which is precisely why it's no coincidence that sex between a man and a woman results in offspring

Obviously? With the bolding you use?

That some folks derive pleasure from various sex acts you're opposed to could then be considered "obvious design".

Propagation is but one aspect of sex, intimacy is another. I point to the bonobos for a non-human example. They use sex as a means to establish dominance, social order, and conflict resolution. These are "obvious design" uses for sex.

Anger is natural. Does that mean we should act on it?
Envy is natural. Does that mean we should encourage it?
Greed is natural. Does that mean we should encourage it?

And not one mention of love.

That's why Jesus is the only solution to the sin problem.

Step 1, offer a "problem" = Sin
Step 2, offer a "cure" = Jesus/God
Step 3, profit

When one creates a problem, should they be trusted to repair it?

But since, unlike animals, we have the capacity to understand values higher than bodily gratification, then not using that ability is a slap in the face to God and we humans.

I consider it a "value" when a woman has sex with me; a "slap in the face" when they don't.

Can you offer verifiable evidence that God thinks, wants, or wishes in the way you claim?

Verifiable, not more human writings in an ancient book, but verifiable.

That's why God considers bodily gratification to be the lowest form of human behavior because we were created for much more than that.

So god considers an intimate, but kinky bout of sex to be less noble than murder?

That's some weird God you got.

[Carico]

And not one mention of love.

That's because love isn't natural. All you have to do is look at all the murders, wars, hatred, jealousy, anger, greed (none of which is love) sexual immorality to see that humans don't know how to love because we're too selfish. So the only kind of "love" we can give others is self-serving.

that's why a society without God does the following:

1) Kills unborn babies with no more conscience than killing a gnat
2) Spends their lives trying to get rich to look better than their neighbors
3) Encourages their children to have sex with members of the same sex
4) Gives their children condoms so they'll have no consequences for their sexual acting out
5) Spends billions of dollars trying to stop; human trafficking, pedophilia, burglary, substance abuse, murder, and other countries who want to kill each other
6) Commits genocide

For starters. So sorry friend, love is not a natural instinct. That's why humanity doesn't understand Christ's love. Instead, they mock him, deny him, curse him and many people spend their lives trying to prove he never existed because His love isn't a natural instinct of man. So people have a hard time believing that it's real.

[Carico]

That some folks derive pleasure from various sex acts you're opposed to could then be considered "obvious design".

Selfish pleasure has nothing whatsoever to do with love because lust isn't love. The only reason homosexuals act out with each other is that each one lusts after the other. They don't care what God or anyone else thinks, including what their behavior does to their children. All that matters is their sexual appetites. There can hardly be anything more selfish.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 19 Post 184:

That's because love isn't natural. All you have to do is look at all the murders, wars, hatred, jealousy, anger, greed (none of which is love) sexual immorality to see that humans don't know how to love because we're too selfish. So the only kind of "love" we can give others is self-serving.

On what authority are you to declare what love is? Are you a psychiatrist/psychologist? What professional training accords you this stature?

IOW, on behalf of the many men and women who have died and suffered to secure our rights and freedoms, I reject your otherwise amateur opinion. >Mine is amateur opinion as well<

that's why a society without God does the following:

Can you offer verifiable evidence there is a god? Lacking such, your examples are nothing more than an attempt at showing a connection that can't be shown to be true.

For starters. So sorry friend, love is not a natural instinct. That's why humanity doesn't understand Christ's love.

And you're saying you do? Ain't that a bit big for your britches to say?

I contend, based on amateur understanding that love is an evolutionary based emotion designed to draw one closer to their potential or current mate. This is a reasonable and logical conclusion derived from various (other's) study of various fields, including biology and psychiatry.

To support my contention, here's just a few links:

PDF - Helen Fisher, The Drive to Love: The Neural Mechanism for Mate Selection

Robin Allot, Evolutionary Aspects of Love and Empathy - Abstract from 1992. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems Volume 15 Number 4 353-370


Molecular Neurobiology of Pair Bonding - Larry J. Young, University of California, Berkeley


(edit to repair goofy quote tags. And what's up with those tags anyway, why do they hate me so much?)

[Carico]

Can you offer verifiable evidence there is a god? Lacking such, your examples are nothing more than an attempt at showing a connection that can't be shown to be true.

Sorry but since science rejects historical accounts and eye-witness testimony in favor of making up a history of their imaginations (including the history of the Jews), then it appears that they and you aren't interested in proof. You'd rather live in your imaginations.

But even if you reject historical accounts you can still see proof of God by everything around you, including your own body. It's design is so intricate that not even scientists can understand everything about it. Order can't come from chaos.

But I find is very interesting that the only reason that the secular world rejects Jesus is precisely because Jesus performed miracles! Yet that's the very evidence you say you want us to provide for the existence of God. God has to be supernatural and do supernatural things in order to be God. So why do you ask for proof of God when that's the very proof that you want to reject? And considering that you have to make up an imaginary history to deny the proof we give you, then nothing, nothing whatsoever is rational about your claims that Jesus isn't who he says he is.

[kayky]

Selfish pleasure has nothing whatsoever to do with love because lust isn't love. The only reason homosexuals act out with each other is that each one lusts after the other. They don't care what God or anyone else thinks, including what their behavior does to their children. All that matters is their sexual appetites. There can hardly be anything more selfish.

I think homosexual couples are just as capable of love as heterosexual couples. To say that homosexual relationships are based on lust, while heterosexual relationships are based on love is simply to reveal your own personal bias. And as far as what God "thinks," that is between the people involved and God. It is really none of your business. No one should have to care about what you think when conducting their lives.

[kayky]

Sorry but since science rejects historical accounts and eye-witness testimony in favor of making up a history of their imaginations (including the history of the Jews), then it appears that they and you aren't interested in proof. You'd rather live in your imaginations.

I'm just curious as to what you mean by "including the history of the Jews."

But even if you reject historical accounts you can still see proof of God by everything around you, including your own body. It's design is so intricate that not even scientists can understand everything about it. Order can't come from chaos.

If you believe that order cannot come from chaos, you need to reread the first chapter of Genesis.

But I find is very interesting that the only reason that the secular world rejects Jesus is precisely because Jesus performed miracles! Yet that's the very evidence you say you want us to provide for the existence of God. God has to be supernatural and do supernatural things in order to be God. So why do you ask for proof of God when that's the very proof that you want to reject? And considering that you have to make up an imaginary history to deny the proof we give you, then nothing, nothing whatsoever is rational about your claims that Jesus isn't who he says he is.

The only "proof" you offer is "the Bible tells me so." You may be willing to simply swallow this hook, line, and sinker--without the least bit of critical examination--but most thinking people are not.