Is Gay Marriage Considered a Sin?

[POI]

For debate:

Is same sex marriage a sin?
If so, where does the Bible say this?
Further, why is it a sin?

[POI]

We would have to show they have an attraction for the same sex and not just gay behaviors.

Hmm... How exactly would one do that?

Or the writer understood the natural law and came to the same conclusion I did.

Unlikely, being that Genesis was written how it was written. Meaning, you have to dismiss, at least, some of what it says as "allegory"-- (see below).

The natural law is not about what we are or are not capable of doing. It deals with the teleology of our nature. The purpose of sex is reproduction, so gays are against the natural law in this way. Their act is not even capable of producing children. If a woman has messed up insides and the doctors think she cannot have children, it is still in her to do so. God can work within her nature so that she gets pregnant.

There is no working within the nature of gays for sexual reproduction.

I find your rationale fascinating and all, but it seems highly improbable. Why?

God gives no explanation for why gay sex is an abomination. Why would god think it is an abomination? Further, such a word is directly synonymous with disgust and hatred. The given verbiage instead suggests God thinks it's icky. So your given explanation does not look to parallel or align with the nature of God's given objection. Seems like you are introducing wishful thinking here --- and nothing more....

(AFG) Rather, I fully accept evolution.

(ME) I would reckon that accepting evolution, full tilt, may cause you to end up shooting yourself in the foot. Let's explore below...

(AFG) Aquinas shows that our souls are made in the image and likeness of God. This is also in the catechism.

(ME) But our response does not follow logically... God popped a "soul" into an early human, which is likely incapable of doing what the Bible suggests???

Again, what exactly did this Adam character look like? Meaning, did he possess the same characteristics as current homo sapiens? If you accept evolution, in it's entirety, when was the first human --(~200K years ago, ~3.1 million years ago, other)? And how do you reconcile the first human, against the Genesis account? Meaning, if we all come from the same common ancestry, when was "Adam"? And if you accept evolution, why did God have to make Eve from "Adam's" rib? So many questions yet to come... And yet, you will likely have to "navigate", through fiery hula hoops, to make any sense of this account...

(AFG) Yeah, but they are told not have sexual interactions at all.

(ME) I already said this....

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #41]

God gives no explanation for why gay sex is an abomination. Why would god think it is an abomination? Further, such a word is directly synonymous with disgust and hatred. The given verbiage instead suggests God thinks it's icky. So your given explanation does not look to parallel or align with the nature of God's given objection. Seems like you are introducing wishful thinking here --- and nothing more....

I think this comes down to our world view. You do not believe in God, so when you read the bible, you are trying to think from that world view. Why did these humans write this about homosexuality? When believers read the same story, they are thinking, why did God show men that homosexuality is wrong? We are probably going to come to different conclusions. God must know homosexuality is wrong for humans, and I am sure it extends beyond just the natural law, but the natural law is a way we humans can come to understand why we should not practice homosexuality within our reason and ability.

I am sure what God sees is far more complex. If we had enough time to run experiments, like setting up several plants where only gays live and setting up planets where no gays live, and see who has the better society in 1000 years, we might come to understand more of why it is wrong.

Again, what exactly did this Adam character look like? Meaning, did he possess the same characteristics as current homo sapiens? If you accept evolution, in it's entirety, when was the first human --(~200K years ago, ~3.1 million years ago, other)? And how do you reconcile the first human, against the Genesis account? Meaning, if we all come from the same common ancestry, when was "Adam"? And if you accept evolution, why did God have to make Eve from "Adam's" rib? So many questions yet to come... And yet, you will likely have to "navigate", through fiery hula hoops, to make any sense of this account...

We do not kow what Adam looked like. We do not know when the first homo sapien sapien existed. By we, I mean all humans. We can only make educated guesses about the past. Genesis is not history, so I don't need to use it as such. God did not make Eve from Adam's rib. Firstly, because the Hebrew means side. Secondly, because it is not a history story.

I have stated that different parts of the bible serve different purposes. Genesis creation story is not science or history or an eye witness account.

So instead, I understand it this way. Humans evolved from mud, so to speak. At some point God took a small family of humans and gave them souls. He chose two of them, Adam and Eve and placed them in a special garden, etc. The story that he took Even from Adam's rib is to illustrate how when we get married we are to become one flesh. I am sure you know the verse, you will leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife becoming one flesh.

[POI]

I think this comes down to our world view. You do not believe in God, so when you read the bible, you are trying to think from that world view. Why did these humans write this about homosexuality? When believers read the same story, they are thinking, why did God show men that homosexuality is wrong? We are probably going to come to different conclusions. God must know homosexuality is wrong for humans, and I am sure it extends beyond just the natural law, but the natural law is a way we humans can come to understand why we should not practice homosexuality within our reason and ability.

I am sure what God sees is far more complex. If we had enough time to run experiments, like setting up several plants where only gays live and setting up planets where no gays live, and see who has the better society in 1000 years, we might come to understand more of why it is wrong.

You are wrong. This has nothing to do with any particular 'world view'. It has to do with the fact that some statements, made in this Bible, do not align with reality/logic.

Further, I'm not questioning every Verse in the Bible. I do not have problems with some stuff the Bible says. But it is quite clear, based upon the verbiage used, that this Bible writer(s) thinks same sex relations is disgusting. And now, you are back peddling, and your apologetics spiel will no longer suffice.

We do not kow what Adam looked like. We do not know when the first homo sapien sapien existed. By we, I mean all humans. We can only make educated guesses about the past. Genesis is not history, so I don't need to use it as such. God did not make Eve from Adam's rib. Firstly, because the Hebrew means side. Secondly, because it is not a history story.

I have stated that different parts of the bible serve different purposes. Genesis creation story is not science or history or an eye witness account.

So instead, I understand it this way. Humans evolved from mud, so to speak. At some point God took a small family of humans and gave them souls. He chose two of them, Adam and Eve and placed them in a special garden, etc. The story that he took Even from Adam's rib is to illustrate how when we get married we are to become one flesh. I am sure you know the verse, you will leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife becoming one flesh.

Like I stated prior, you will use the 'allegory' excuse.

Case/point: "The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”...."So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs"

So basically, if the author was remotely aware of evolution, the story would have stated something more to the affect of.... "God saw that Adam was lonely, so He grabbed a woman from another region/area, and placed her there for him."

So now, we all get to read as you pull 'spin' out of your keester.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #43]

But it is quite clear, based upon the verbiage used, that this Bible writer(s) thinks same sex relations is disgusting.

Yet you haven't shown a verse where the writer says that homosexuality is yucky. You haven't shown that the writer is disgusted by the act of men being with men or women being with women. That is your interpolation.

If you saw the light of God, then refused to go to mass, I can say you are an abomination to God and yet I would not be disgusted by you not going to mass.

Case/point: "The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”...."So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs"

So basically, if the author was remotely aware of evolution, the story would have stated something more to the affect of.... "God saw that Adam was lonely, so He grabbed a woman from another region/area, and placed her there for him."

No because that is not the point of the story. However, we do learn that the author understood there were other humans. Cain was removed from the garden and yet he found a wife.

[POI]

Yet you haven't shown a verse where the writer says that homosexuality is yucky. You haven't shown that the writer is disgusted by the act of men being with men or women being with women. That is your interpolation.

It's not my interpretation, it's a general dictionary interpretation:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

If you look up the term abomination, it states - a thing that causes disgust or hatred.

It's certainly no stretch to conclude that the writer thinks same sex relations is gross. Therefore, it's bad!

What DOES seem to be a stretch, would be to conclude "God is okay with gay marriage, but just no sex"

No because that is not the point of the story. However, we do learn that the author understood there were other humans. Cain was removed from the garden and yet he found a wife.

Of course it's not "the point", because it then causes quite the inconvenience for you...

And sure, there exists many inconsistencies in Genesis.

Further, one could just as easily argue that the Bible did not mention that Adam and Eve had more kids, and viola, Cain has a mate.

But you seemed to ignore the point of my last response... If the author was even slightly aware that evolution is a thing, he would NOT have written such a story (i.e) "God had to take something from Adam while he was sleeping to CREATE Eve." In Adam's case, god had to create. In Cain's case, he didn't.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #45]

It's not my interpretation, it's a general dictionary interpretation:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

If you look up the term abomination, it states - a thing that causes disgust or hatred.

It's certainly no stretch to conclude that the writer thinks same sex relations is gross. Therefore, it's bad!

What DOES seem to be a stretch, would be to conclude "God is okay with gay marriage, but just no sex"

A couple of things. First, the person did not write in English. Two, the English definition of abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. Disgust OR hated, not disgust and hatred. And the next definition: a feeling of hatred.

One can hate an act of sin without thinking it is disgusting. BTW, I never said God is okay with gay marriage. I said it is not a sin to be gay but to act on your gay desires.

Further, one could just as easily argue that the Bible did not mention that Adam and Eve had more kids, and viola, Cain has a mate.

Those kids are listed and they would have been with Adam and Eve, not with Cain whom they kicked out of their land.

But you seemed to ignore the point of my last response... If the author was even slightly aware that evolution is a thing, he would NOT have written such a story (i.e) "God had to take something from Adam while he was sleeping to CREATE Eve." In Adam's case, god had to create. In Cain's case, he didn't.

Why would the writer be aware of evolution? Why would God have to tell him about evolution?

[POI]

First, the person did not write in English.

You make a great point. Why would an almighty being decide to convey truth, while using changing and/or dying languages?.?.?.? And further, why would the English translation muck it up so badly?

Two, the English definition of abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. Disgust OR hated, not disgust and hatred. And the next definition: a feeling of hatred.

My interpretation seems most reasonable. I have already explained why. Your explanation, on the other hand, requires more acrobats.

One can hate an act of sin without thinking it is disgusting. BTW, I never said God is okay with gay marriage. I said it is not a sin to be gay but to act on your gay desires.

So gay marriage, w/o sex, is also a sin? Why?

Those kids are listed and they would have been with Adam and Eve, not with Cain whom they kicked out of their land.

So to recap... Adam and Eve were not the first humans? Then why in the heck does the Bible express that God had to create Eve directly from Adam?

Why would the writer be aware of evolution? Why would God have to tell him about evolution?

Was the author inspired by God, or not? Assuming he was, then the writer would be a mere ghost writer --- simply writing down what god tells him. Thus, was god not aware of how evolution works?

[Darwin's Hammer]

[Replying to POI in post #39]



The natural law is not about what we are or are not capable of doing. It deals with the teleology of our nature. The purpose of sex is reproduction, so gays are against the natural law in this way. Their act is not even capable of producing children. If a woman has messed up insides and the doctors think she cannot have children, it is still in her to do so. God can work within her nature so that she gets pregnant.

There is no working within the nature of gays for sexual reproduction.

First: your claim that "The purpose of sex is reproduction" is incorrect. In humans sex has many purposes one of which can be reproduction.


Second: You have presented a rather glaring double standard. You say that since Dennis and Alex cannot biologically have children their relationship is wrong and violates natural law. But at the same time when Doug and Wendy cannot biologically have children there is no violation of natural law and their relationship is fine. You are showing that the opposition to same sex marriage isn't about reproduction but about justifying prejudice.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are showing that the opposition to same sex marriage isn't about reproduction but about justifying prejudice.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses we see no reason to "oppose" same sex marriage, it is simply prohibited within our community. I cannot see how that can be considered a justification for an "prejudicial opinion" as per the definition of prejudice.





JW




RELATED POSTS

Does the bible promote prejudice?
viewtopic.php?p=995692#p995692

Should law and law enforcement be seen as evidence of hate or prejudice?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p993684

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

PREJUDICE , RACISM and .... HOMOPHOBIA

[Darwin's Hammer]

You are showing that the opposition to same sex marriage isn't about reproduction but about justifying prejudice.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses we see no reason to "oppose" same sex marriage, it is simply prohibited within our community. I cannot see how that can be considered a justification for an "prejudicial opinion" as per the definition of prejudice.

If there is no reason to oppose it why is it prohibited?