A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Reply to topic
KingandPriest
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:52 pm  Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati Reply with quote

An all to common argument I have heard to support homosexuality or transgender-ism is the concept of being born this way. As a Christian I could relate to the concept of being born with a proclivity towards a certain activity which may lead to sin.

Recently, I heard a discussion which reminded me of one of my undergraduate law courses. This was years ago, so I apologize if I do not present as good an argument as this professor. In the course, the professor argued for maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman because in the court of law, setting a legal precedence on one matter can lead to unintended applications of the decision later on.

As we know, the law is tricky in that a judge may be forced to rule one way based on precedence rather than fairness or equity. To this end, the professor argued that if the law was changed (as it has been today) because one judge or a few judges deemed it acceptable to broaden the definition of marriage, then a precedent could be set for future changes resulting in "undesired effects."

This now leads to the conversation on being "born this way." When a person is making an argument from the position of being "born this way" are they arguing that any person who is born with certain attractions should be allowed to love who ever they wish?

I ask, because many individuals who are currently considered sexual pedophiles can argue that they were born this way, and were attracted to younger people since they were a child. Is it wrong to condemn these individuals for their attractions but praise or support an individual who has homosexual feelings?

If the only answer is because they are breaking the law, then it is fair to argue that homosexuality was once illegal in many nations in the world. Is is possible that a precedent has been set to allow those who were once demonized and criminalized as pedophiles to join the LGBT community, as another misunderstood and rejected people group?

Why treat those who have been "born with a attraction" to the same sex differently from those who have been "born with an attraction" to a younger individual?


In some places, consent for marriage can occur as young as 13. Could those individuals who desire to have relationships and marriage to 13 year old, use the precedent of changing the definition of marriage to expand the parameters on consent as well?

What about being born with an attraction towards animals, or physical objects? The porn industry is evidence that people have these desires. Should they be allowed to marry what they love as well? In short, the professor argued that the court of law does not ask, "where does it end" if precedent has been set and no new laws are written.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 101: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:09 am
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
DanieltheDragon wrote:


Jesus was not asked to comment on gay or plural marriage. He was asked about one wife and one husband. He answered in kind. It does not prohibit gay marriage talk about gay marriage or reference gay marriage in anyway. More to the point it does not mandate anything. It simply exists as an observation about what it means to be married.

Find me a verse that prohibits gay marriage or plural marriage.


Here is the same verse again:
Quote:
Matthew 19:3-6

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


So here Jesus point those who questioned him back to the original intent of marriage which God set in the beginning.
1.Jesus points out the God made them male and female.
(So this clarifies which gender supports which role, and shows only heterosexual unions were inteded)
2. The man (singular) will be united to his wife. And the 2 (1+1=2) will become one.
(This eliminates polygamy)

Just because Jesus was not asked to comment on gay marriage (which didn't exist in that era or area), this does not mean it was not addressed. By pointing to the original design, all other combinations which could be conceived are mute.

Imagine this example, a person wants to build a home. They ask the architect can they just put the water pipes and electrical cords in any configuration they wish. The architect replies that although they have the ability, it goes against the original design and can/will lead to problems down the line. The options are to:
(a)follow the architects design, trusting that the architect has far more knowledge about proper structural and integral design,
or
(b) do what they want and live with the potential consequences

Homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, etc are all choices a person makes to go against the design of the architect.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 102: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:10 am
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
[Replying to post 101 by KingandPriest]

Quote:
1.Jesus points out the God made them male and female.
(So this clarifies which gender supports which role, and shows only heterosexual unions were inteded)
2. The man (singular) will be united to his wife. And the 2 (1+1=2) will become one.
(This eliminates polygamy)

Just because Jesus was not asked to comment on gay marriage (which didn't exist in that era or area), this does not mean it was not addressed. By pointing to the original design, all other combinations which could be conceived are mute.


1. I would hope Jesus a believer in God would suggest God created man and women. This observation does not clarify the intent of all unions. You simply inferred that into the text. I.e. Your interpretation. This does not show only heterosexual unions. It simply observes that a man may leave his parents and be united with a female. Beyond that is inference on your part or anyone's part.

Again to be clear. Anything beyond a man may leave his parents to be married with a woman is beyond the text.

2. Your math is wrong 1+1=2 is correct but it's the wrong equation. Because 2 does not equal 1 and the text clearly states the 1 man and 1 woman will become 1 so the correct equation is 1x1=1. Now I don't mean to get pedantic but if the man and woman become one then we are back to dealing with one unit again why not multiply another 1x1x1=1 so we are still at one flesh! Heck let's try 1x1x1x1x1x1=1. Oh my goodness it doesn't rule out polygamy!

You are inferring beyond scripture King and priest your interpreting it one way while other people can interpret it other ways.

Oh and btw gay marriage existed in the Roman Empire. It wasn't banned until Christianity was the official Roman religion....

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 103: Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:56 am
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
DanieltheDragon wrote:

[Replying to post 101 by KingandPriest]

Quote:
1.Jesus points out the God made them male and female.
(So this clarifies which gender supports which role, and shows only heterosexual unions were inteded)
2. The man (singular) will be united to his wife. And the 2 (1+1=2) will become one.
(This eliminates polygamy)

Just because Jesus was not asked to comment on gay marriage (which didn't exist in that era or area), this does not mean it was not addressed. By pointing to the original design, all other combinations which could be conceived are mute.


1. I would hope Jesus a believer in God would suggest God created man and women. This observation does not clarify the intent of all unions. You simply inferred that into the text. I.e. Your interpretation. This does not show only heterosexual unions. It simply observes that a man may leave his parents and be united with a female. Beyond that is inference on your part or anyone's part.

The question he was posed with was about marriage. Jesus pointed to the design for marriage. You can try and find loopholes for the purpose of self convenience but it does not change what he said. All I did was point out what was written. In what manner can you turn "the man will be united to his wife" to approval of non-hetero marriages?

DanieltheDragon wrote:

Again to be clear. Anything beyond a man may leave his parents to be married with a woman is beyond the text.

I agree. There is no way to show that this supports any other marriage outside of a male female relationship.

DanieltheDragon wrote:

2. Your math is wrong 1+1=2 is correct but it's the wrong equation. Because 2 does not equal 1 and the text clearly states the 1 man and 1 woman will become 1 so the correct equation is 1x1=1.

The text does not state or imply that 2 = 1. It states the two become one. This implies that a process occurs overtime where the two distinct persons "become" one.
The word two is actually in the statement, so you cannot ignore it or change it for convenience.

DanieltheDragon wrote:
Now I don't mean to get pedantic but if the man and woman become one then we are back to dealing with one unit again why not multiply another 1x1x1=1 so we are still at one flesh! Heck let's try 1x1x1x1x1x1=1. Oh my goodness it doesn't rule out polygamy!
Only if you change the text to fit your statement. You are trying to make it seem as if the union makes them one automatically. The word become clearly shows a process is involved, so the 1x1=1 analogy fails. In fact it fails for 2 reasons. Physically the wife and husband do not become a single person, but they become a single unit (family). Additionally, you ignore the singular language used to speak of the man and his wife.

DanieltheDragon wrote:

You are inferring beyond scripture King and priest your interpreting it one way while other people can interpret it other ways.

I agree, people can make up interpretations all the time. That does not make it true.

DanieltheDragon wrote:
Oh and btw gay marriage existed in the Roman Empire. It wasn't banned until Christianity was the official Roman religion....

I know it existed in the roman empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 104: Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:40 pm
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
[Replying to KingandPriest]

Quote:
The question he was posed with was about marriage. Jesus pointed to the design for marriage. You can try and find loopholes for the purpose of self convenience but it does not change what he said. All I did was point out what was written. In what manner can you turn "the man will be united to his wife" to approval of non-hetero marriages?


Jesus did not point out the "design" for marriage. He simply made an observation of what a marriage can look like. You forget the question he asked of him was leading. Meaning that we have to take into account he was responding to the specific circumstance posed to him. Hence we can't infer much beyond his original statement this excludes any prescriptions or blueprints for what marriage is. He was simply responding to the issue of divorce between a man and a woman.

I am not finding loopholes I am simply pointing out the limitations of what you can infer from the scripture. That to go beyond what is said is simply adding your personal opinion to the issue.

I did not say this scripture said it approves of gay marriage I specifically pointed out it does not prohibit gay marriage.

Quote:
I agree. There is no way to show that this supports any other marriage outside of a male female relationship.


To reiterate for the sake of easier reading comprehension, I did not say this verse supports gay marriage rather I said it does not prohibit.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 105: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:00 pm
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]

Quote:
The text does not state or imply that 2 = 1. It states the two become one. This implies that a process occurs overtime where the two distinct persons "become" one.
The word two is actually in the statement, so you cannot ignore it or change it for convenience.


I did not say the text implied 2=1. I said the text said two will become one. Which is why your 1+1=2 makes no sense whatsoever. It does put say each individual will become two.

I recognized two is in the statement it says two will become one.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 106: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:04 pm
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]

Quote:
Only if you change the text to fit your statement. You are trying to make it seem as if the union makes them one automatically. The word become clearly shows a process is involved, so the 1x1=1 analogy fails. In fact it fails for 2 reasons. Physically the wife and husband do not become a single person, but they become a single unit (family). Additionally, you ignore the singular language used to speak of the man and his wife.

1. I did not say they become automatically
2. I did show a process 1 X 1 there is a process of multiplying
3. It doesn't say they become one family unit. You just made that up. It says they become one flesh. Whether this refers to a family unit a child or spiritual Union is all personal opinion.
4.I did not ignore the singular language. It seems like your contorting your own arguments in on themselves at this point.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 107: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:08 pm
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]

Quote:
I know it existed in the Roman Empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.


You can't retcon your way out of this. Your statements were not specific but general and the culture present in Israel was the Roman Empire.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 108: Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:33 am
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
DanieltheDragon wrote:

[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]

Quote:
I know it existed in the Roman Empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.


You can't retcon your way out of this. Your statements were not specific but general and the culture present in Israel was the Roman Empire.

So the roman empire worshiped Jehovah and centered their weeks and seasons based on the Torah?

I think not. There may have been homosexual relationships present in Israel. This I do not contest. Marriage however for the Jewish people was handled by the priests not the roman empire.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 109: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:53 pm
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
KingandPriest wrote:

DanieltheDragon wrote:

[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]

Quote:
I know it existed in the Roman Empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.


You can't retcon your way out of this. Your statements were not specific but general and the culture present in Israel was the Roman Empire.

So the roman empire worshiped Jehovah and centered their weeks and seasons based on the Torah?

I think not. There may have been homosexual relationships present in Israel. This I do not contest. Marriage however for the Jewish people was handled by the priests not the roman empire.


You said it did not exist in that era or area. Moreover Roman Judea was not exclusively Jewish. While it had Jews who lived there not everyone was Jewish. Moreover you seem to be saying that this only applies to Jewish people, wasn't Jesus suppos d to be speaking more globally?

Regardless this doesn't change the fact that you are interpreting the verse. Whether your right or wrong makes no difference to the fact that your scripture can be interpreted in different ways. Hence there is no standard. Let me make an easy example for you to digest.



A+3+C=10

A and c can mean many different things here if I said a equals 1 and c equals 6 my interpretation would not be wrong. If you said A equals 3 and C equals 4 you would not be wrong to interpret that way. Even if the real answerwas A equals 2 and C equals 5.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 110: Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:01 pm
Reply
Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Like this post
DanieltheDragon wrote:


You said it did not exist in that era or area. Moreover Roman Judea was not exclusively Jewish. While it had Jews who lived there not everyone was Jewish. Moreover you seem to be saying that this only applies to Jewish people, wasn't Jesus suppos d to be speaking more globally?

I brought up the Jewish audience to give context to the debate. You suggested that his statements did not apply to homosexuality, because he did not address it directly. I pointed out that by pointing to original intent of God, this eliminated all other possible variances.

DanieltheDragon wrote:


Regardless this doesn't change the fact that you are interpreting the verse. Whether your right or wrong makes no difference to the fact that your scripture can be interpreted in different ways.

Yes, you can interpret it different ways if you ignore what was said. If you input statements or change what was written, then yes you can arrive at what ever interpretation suites you.

DanieltheDragon wrote:


Hence there is no standard.


You state their is no standard because you choose to ignore the standard clearly presented.

DanieltheDragon wrote:

Let me make an easy example for you to digest.



A+3+C=10

And where do you find support for this example in the bible? Did you make it up to support your point, even though your point is contrary to what is actually found in the bible?

If you were to say you choose not to adhere to the standard because you don't agree or don't like it, that would be one thing. But to suggest it does not exist when it is clearly written is unwise.

DanieltheDragon wrote:


A and c can mean many different things here if I said a equals 1 and c equals 6 my interpretation would not be wrong. If you said A equals 3 and C equals 4 you would not be wrong to interpret that way. Even if the real answer was A equals 2 and C equals 5.

There are a lot of hypotheticals but not an actual comparison with what Jesus stated. Jesus stated God made them male and female. He then stated a man is to be joined to his wife. There is no interpretation in what I wrote in the past 2 sentences. I just restated what He said.

On the otherhand, you have created an equation that is not comparable to what Jesus pointed to as the standard for marriage.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version