Homosexuality

[Inactive Account]

agh the number of things wrong with that (Komodo's) post

If you're an alcoholic, there was some sort of choice involved. Social pressures may certainly have been a part of it, but in order to have become alcoholic, at some point you had to decide to take a drink. Other things could have contributed to the problem, but somewhere in the causes of the problem was an unwise choice you yourself made.

You think if people could decide to be of a certain sexuality or gender identity, they would pick the option that can lead to massive persecution, potential alienation from intolerant friends and family, even death depending on where they live? That one day a person just goes "hm, I think that instead of the opposite sex, I'm going to be attracted to the same sex, that's a good idea"? Do you honestly believe that? It was my understanding that "sin" had an element of choice involved, so...

Going past that, you think your definition of sin, whatever it may be, ought to be applied to everyone, regardless of what they follow?

...I need an ibuprofen.

(P.S. Please don't post a rebuttal comparing homosexuality/transgender/etc to a mental illness as a "problem that needs to be fixed". Doesn't work that way.)

Edited May 19, 2011 by Kiryn

[Caliban of Sycorax]

You said earlier "if god is perfect, and he doesn't make mistakes, then arent gays supposed to happen, or something like that. But my point of view is, If you were an alchoholic then you have a problem right? Well it's the same type of thing. If you are sinning that means that there is a problem, and you need to get it fixed.

But are you calling homosexuality a sin by comparing it to alcoholism?

[Bearissoslow]

Alcoholism is something that one adapts to after becoming a consistent drinker. An action (drinking) is required before one can be an alcoholic. One cannot be an alcoholic without having ingested alcohol at some point in his/her life and becoming physically and/or emotionally and/or mentally addicted to it. The cause comes before the effect.

Homosexuality is something that describes a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same gender. There is not any action required (such as sex, masturbation, etc.) for one to still be defined as a homosexual. There isn't necessarily a defining action to still be considered gay, as it's something that's not dependent on one's actions; it's dependent on one's own sexuality, an interior aspect, as opposed to an action, which is an exterior aspect (note: this has nothing to do with nature vs. nurture). The effect comes before the cause.

These comparisons are not congruent at all. That, and I'm not even sure what you're trying to say if we are assuming your argument is valid. Even if homosexuality was a sin that people knowingly chose, are you saying that governmental rights should be restricted solely on how virtuous you are? If that were the case, the government would have to sort amongst all morality in the nation and then divvy up states to decide morality and such so that everyone who truly "deserves" rights would get them, and all the sinners would get nothing. The government gets to act as the modern-day shaman to decide who gets civil rights and who doesn't in this scenario, nothing short of a diviner interpreting God's will. Is this what you say is ideal? Is this what should logically follow?

But, since I'm a jerk, I want to attack your beliefs and just ask some probing questions: if homosexuality is something that is adapted to, how do you explain teenagers who have never had any sexual contact that still define themselves as homosexuals? How do you explain homosexuality in animals (which, iirc, are assumed to not have free will by the Christian religion)? How would you, without a doubt, be able to prove to me that homosexuality is a choice and not a genetic (and possibly nurtured) sexual preference? As much as I'm being hostile with these questions, I do sincerely want genuine answers to these.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Bearissoslow

[Aleph]

I still say that whether or not homosexuality is a choice has no bearing on the issue.

[Bearissoslow]

It's really not at all. People choose to wearing unfashionable clothing. Does that mean that people who would enact laws against those very same people are just?

No.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Bearissoslow

[Strawman]

You know guys, if you want something to compare homosexuality to that isn't completely ridiculous, try heterosexuality. As in homosexuality isn't anymore of a choice than heterosexuality is. People accept that guys just naturally find girls attractive and vice versa, yet they think one chooses to be gay. Its the exact same type of thing guys. If heterosexuality just kind of happens, as in thats just how some people are, then why isn't homosexuality seen that way?

Alternatively you could also say that both homo and heterosexuality are choices. But really I don't see many instances where people choose feelings like that.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

You know guys, if you want something to compare homosexuality to that isn't completely ridiculous, try heterosexuality. As in homosexuality isn't anymore of a choice than heterosexuality is. People accept that guys just naturally find girls attractive and vice versa, yet they think one chooses to be gay. Its the exact same type of thing guys. If heterosexuality just kind of happens, as in thats just how some people are, then why isn't homosexuality seen that way?

Alternatively you could also say that both homo and heterosexuality are choices. But really I don't see many instances where people choose feelings like that.

Truth.

[Crystal Shards]

*sigh* Not going to respond to everything, but:

- BOTH nature AND nurture play a role in ANY human trait. The funny thing is: it doesn't matter WHAT it is. Sexuality is fluid and ever-changing. It doesn't just have to do with what sex or gender you're attracted to (and yes, there's a difference between the two). Sexuality has a lot more going for it than that. Anyway, even IF it were only nature or only nurture, what exactly would that mean? Does that mean people shouldn't have rights if it's one or the other? As some people have pointed out, it has no bearing on the issue. It should not determine whether someone should be treated like a human being and given the same rights as heterosexuals.

- Wedding: religious ceremony. Marriage: legal contract. Please don't conflate the two. If you allow gay marriages, it does not require that gays have weddings. You can have a marriage and not have a wedding, which a lot of people do, and you can have a wedding without filing the paperwork to be married (which isn't nearly as common but I have heard of it happening--in fact one of my ex-boyfriends tried to get me to do that with him). If gay marriage is made legal through the US, any church that is against gay marriage can state they won't wed gays. Trust me, some churches still won't wed interracial couples or couples where the partners have differing religions. Their rights to that will not change.

- The reason the GLBTQIA community isn't happy with civil unions, other than the "separate but equal" treatment, is that it's NOT equal. If you engage in a civil union, regardless of your orientation and who you're engaging in a civil union with, it doesn't have to recognized by other states. It also does not allow you to adopt children (again, regardless of your orientation) if the state has a "no unmarried people can adopt" law. There's a lot more than this but I'm kind of pressed for time.

I think that's all I have for now. Just a few points I wanted to make based off of skimming the past four pages or so.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Crystal Shards

[Aleph]

If heterosexuality just kind of happens, as in thats just how some people are, then why isn't homosexuality seen that way?

But see when you look at it like that it implies that whether or not it's a choice determines if it's evil. This is the bajillionth time I've said this, but that it doesn't matter if it's a choice.

What makes a thing "evil" or whatever is the consequences of doing it, not whether it is a choice, or else everything we willingly did would be terrible.

So before anyone decides it's okay to deny rights of homosexuals or anyone who isn't being punished for a legitimate charge of crime they're going to have to prove that whatever it is that puts those people in the group they're being persecuted for being a part of has unacceptable consequences and last time I checked no one died because a dude liked another dude.

This isn't even getting into the double standard people have between homosexual women and homosexual men

it's NOT equal. If you engage in a civil union, regardless of your orientation and who you're engaging in a civil union with, it doesn't have to recognized by other states. It also does not allow you to adopt children (again, regardless of your orientation) if the state has a "no unmarried people can adopt" law.

It'd piss me off even if it was just a different name for essentially the same thing because it's a demonstration of intolerance that's unnecessary.

That said it really is different and it's the same fucking shit they pulled the past couple of centuries against a different group of people.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Obviam

[Crystal Shards]

It'd piss me off even if it was just a different name for essentially the same thing because it's a demonstration of intolerance that's unnecessary.

That said it really is different and it's the same fucking shit they pulled the past couple of centuries against a different group of people.

Hence the "The reason the GLBTQIA community isn't happy with civil unions, other than the "separate but equal" treatment," which you took out.

[Ring Wraith]

Okay, first off, I didn't read the whole thread because I don't have that kind of time. I did read the first page though, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents in response to it.

I am against legalized homosexual marriage. Not because I hate gays--I once had a coworker who was gay and he was a really nice guy. The main reason is because of my Christian faith. The point about Leviticus is accurate, much of it is living healthy lifestyle, and morality is difficult to determine when mixed in with this. However, being stoned was the punishment for homosexuality, and that's not something that would be given to something that's just culture. Also, according to the Biblical account, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part because of homosexuality. Hence the term "sodomy". Again, a town wouldn't be destroyed because of societal preference. Romans 1 also calls it a sin. The New Testament doesn't call anything a sin unless it is, as it's reinstating morality after the law of Moses was fulfilled.

Yes, I believe the Bible is God-inspired and is perfect. Because of this, I understand that this argument isn't accepted by all. The point is, those who do believe in the Bible in the way I do don't want their nation accepting immorality with open arms.

My other argument (separate from the Bible), is that it's a slippery slope. Once we let this in, there's no telling what's next. Incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality? I wouldn't be surprised.

As for the past page or two, which I skimmed, there is some choice in the matter. They have been silent in the past, they could still be. I personally think it's a tendency, not a mandatory choice. Obviously, this would be really difficult to do, so I really don't blame them for it, although I also don't accept what they're doing as right. There's no way to prove whether it is or not though, so it's moot.

However, on a strictly political level, I would say it should be legalized.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Okay, first off, I didn't read the whole thread because I don't have that kind of time. I did read the first page though, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents in response to it.

I can see that, it's a lot of information to take in. However, I give you credit for reading something before you jump in.

I am against legalized homosexual marriage. Not because I hate gays--I once had a coworker who was gay and he was a really nice guy. The main reason is because of my Christian faith.

Some Christian denominations do allow same-sex marriage, I hope you know.

The point about Leviticus is accurate, much of it is living healthy lifestyle, and morality is difficult to determine when mixed in with this. However, being stoned was the punishment for homosexuality, and that's not something that would be given to something that's just culture.

Leviticus also said it was wrong to eat shellfish, it was okay to sell your daughter to slavery, children who disobeyed their parents suffered death by stoning, and women on their periods were unclean.

Also, according to the Biblical account, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part because of homosexuality. Hence the term "sodomy". Again, a town wouldn't be destroyed because of societal preference.

Wrong. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the hospitality laws. Not only did they disrespect a visitor, it was a divine visitor. The same would have happened if the angel had taken female form. It had nothing to do with the fact they were men wanting to rape another man.

Romans 1 also calls it a sin. The New Testament doesn't call anything a sin unless it is, as it's reinstating morality after the law of Moses was fulfilled.

This makes sense, but Christianity follows Christ, not Paul.

Yes, I believe the Bible is God-inspired and is perfect. Because of this, I understand that this argument isn't accepted by all. The point is, those who do believe in the Bible in the way I do don't want their nation accepting immorality with open arms.

Since when was this Christianity's nation? The United States was founded on CHRISTIAN values but the Constitution states separation of Church and State.

My other argument (separate from the Bible), is that it's a slippery slope. Once we let this in, there's no telling what's next. Incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality? I wouldn't be surprised.

They aren't even related. The fact that you link gays with incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality is quite insulting.

The fact is, we are not looking to be married in a church. As I stated before I'm a Buddhist. I couldn't give two shits if a Christian church told me they wouldn't do a ceremony for me. The argument is about receiving equal benefits as heterosexual couples.

As for the past page or two, which I skimmed, there is some choice in the matter. They have been silent in the past, they could still be. I personally think it's a tendency, not a mandatory choice. Obviously, this would be really difficult to do, so I really don't blame them for it, although I also don't accept what they're doing as right. There's no way to prove whether it is or not though, so it's moot.

The idea is that it's not an active choice, it depends on nurturing within the first few years of life. But also there is some nature involved in it.

However, on a strictly political level, I would say it should be legalized.

I'm glad you see this point, because the religious argument is idiotic because it's not the point.

[Balcerzak]

The point about Leviticus is accurate, much of it is living healthy lifestyle, and morality is difficult to determine when mixed in with this. However, being stoned was the punishment for homosexuality, and that's not something that would be given to something that's just culture.

No. Leviticus was the old code and was nailed to the cross and replaced by the covenant with Jesus Christ.

Also, according to the Biblical account, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part because of homosexuality. Hence the term "sodomy". Again, a town wouldn't be destroyed because of societal preference.

No. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for reasons that had nothing to do with sexual behaviour. The sexual connotations were a symptom of the wrong in those two cities, not the disease.

They broke the firm rules and traditions associated with hospitality, sacred in that time frame by demanding to rape the newcomers to the city. It wasn't the man-on-man aspect that was the problem, and indeed that doesn't even enter the picture, due to the angels in question being non-gendered, IIRC. It was the breach in trust, and subjugation associated with the act when instead newcomers should have been greeted warmly and treated with respect.

Furthermore, Ezekiel chapter 16 has this explicitly to say on the matter:

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Romans 1 also calls it a sin. The New Testament doesn't call anything a sin unless it is, as it's reinstating morality after the law of Moses was fulfilled.

Um, no. Men having sex with men was again referred to as a symptom, or perhaps even a penalty in this instance. Romans 1:

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, it is clear from this passage that all of the sexual acts were of a lustful nature, be they homosexual or heterosexual. There's no question that there can be sinful sexual homosexual relations, yes. But I challenge you to find a verse that states unequivocably that all homosexual relations are by definition sinful. I'm positive it cannot be done.

My other argument (separate from the Bible), is that it's a slippery slope. Once we let this in, there's no telling what's next. Incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality? I wouldn't be surprised.

What's wrong with polygamy? Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah, didn't he? In homosexual and multiple partner relations there exists the possibility for informed consent on the part of all participants. There is no way to achieve this with necrophilia nor with bestiality. Lack of consent provides a clear delineating factor, and eliminates any even gentle slope, much less a slippery one.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination -Leviticus 18:22 from the King James version

Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. -Leviticus 18:22 from the New Living Translation

These two passages seem to suggest that all homosexual sexual relationships are sinful in nature.

Anyways, I agree with all your other points about polygamy etc. Anyways, even if the Bible did say that these things were wrong, it doesn't mean that they are "evil" in any way. In my opinion the Bible itself is morally "evil" (yes this includes the New Testament). What value does a book that's at least 1700 years old have on what's right or wrong today? The moral zeitgeist is an ever changing one and we rely on reason to determine what's right and what's wrong, not some ancient text. That being said, there is no rationale as to why homosexuality should be "wrong". It might even be a good thing due to the population problem that seems all but imminent.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Said book was also written and translated by those in power. Straight white men. Who knows how much they warped it for themselves?

[Balcerzak]

Said book was also written and translated by those in power. Straight white men. Who knows how much they warped it for themselves?

The Lord was apparently not a fan of the big black cock either.

"26 You engaged in prostitution with the Egyptians, your neighbors with large genitals, and aroused my anger with your increasing promiscuity."

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Aye, Yahweh was not a pleasant fellow in any sense. The following quote from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion describes him perfectly: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

As for the translation/compilation problems that exist in the Bible, it is all the more reasons to not follow what's written inside it as absolute law that must be followed. If it really was the work of god, then wouldn't he ensure that it doesn't become corrupt? If not, then why believe it?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[Bearissoslow]

The Bible is just reflective of the morals and fear shared by the society it was written in. It's like trying to quote the framers of America for directly situational issues, except somehow more out of place.

[Ring Wraith]

...The main reason is because of my Christian faith.

Some Christian denominations do allow same-sex marriage, I hope you know.

Emphasis on the my. I understand that not all Christians believe the same.

Romans 1 also calls it a sin. The New Testament doesn't call anything a sin unless it is, as it's reinstating morality after the law of Moses was fulfilled.

This makes sense, but Christianity follows Christ, not Paul.

Because of my Biblical belief, I would say Paul's works are inspired and thus from God, completely accurate.

Those who do believe in the Bible in the way I do don't want their nation accepting immorality with open arms.

Since when was this Christianity's nation? The United States was founded on CHRISTIAN values but the Constitution states separation of Church and State.

When did I say it was? I'm not expecting America to make laws that everybody has to go to church. However, I don't want my nation to allow what I consider immorality. If people could all agree on morality, we wouldn't have problems.

My other argument (separate from the Bible), is that it's a slippery slope. Once we let this in, there's no telling what's next. Incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality? I wouldn't be surprised.

They aren't even related. The fact that you link gays with incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality is quite insulting.

They're related in the fact that they're all what I consider sexual sin. Some of those might be stretching it. Bestiality though really isn't. My college English teacher told me about a guy who had sex with a dead deer on the side of the road. He said he was drawn to it. I can look up the news article if you want me to. There's no way to prove he wasn't though. The argument could easily be the same for bestiality as it is for homosexuality.

I did not mean to offend, my words weren't chosen carefully. Sorry.

What's wrong with polygamy? Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah, didn't he? In homosexual and multiple partner relations there exists the possibility for informed consent on the part of all participants. There is no way to achieve this with necrophilia nor with bestiality. Lack of consent provides a clear delineating factor, and eliminates any even gentle slope, much less a slippery one.

I didn't say anything were wrong with these things (although I'm against all except for polygamy). Gaius Julius Caesar certainly didn't like it though...

There's no consent for horses to do work. They don't get paid, they don't get to go on strike (well, I guess stubborn ones can). Should they not be able to work anymore?

Said book was also written and translated by those in power. Straight white men. Who knows how much they warped it for themselves?

If it really was the work of God, then wouldn't He ensure that it doesn't become corrupt? If not, then why believe it?

This pretty much sums up my belief on that. Also, the copied manuscripts that are found are extremely close to the original, and the few differences are minor and don't deal with moral and doctrinal issues. Also, from these manuscripts, anybody can translate them. I've taken a course in Koine Greek and have verified some passages myself. The English translations are usually pretty good. Translation has little to do with this argument for those that believe the Bible is inerrant.

The Bible is just reflective of the morals and fear shared by the society it was written in. It's like trying to quote the framers of America for directly situational issues, except somehow more out of place.

That's a personal belief, not a fact.

Furthermore, Ezekiel chapter 16 has this explicitly to say on the matter: Quote

49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Good catch.

Furthermore, it is clear from this passage that all of the sexual acts were of a lustful nature, be they homosexual or heterosexual. There's no question that there can be sinful sexual homosexual relations, yes. But I challenge you to find a verse that states unequivocally that all homosexual relations are by definition sinful. I'm positive it cannot be done.

If you kept reading to verse 32...

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them

"Such things" could refer to the long list of sin mentioned in verses 29-30, but could also refer to homosexuality. You are right that there isn't a verse that says "Every homosexual relation is a sin" in the New Testament, as far as I know, but every time it is spoken of, it's in a negative light. There are the Leviticus passages that Fire Emblem Addict mentioned (who has an awesome avatar), but as you mentioned the old law has passed away.

[eclipse]

I think that what people do in their personal time is not something that others should pry into, unless it directly concerns them. We have to live with the consequences of whatever we do, right or wrong. I believe we also have to answer for what we've done once we're dead, but I won't hold everyone else to that.

I am far more concerned about things like federal tax laws, annulment, and other non-moral consequences.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

[/color]

Emphasis on the my. I understand that not all Christians believe the same.

Because of my Biblical belief, I would say Paul's works are inspired and thus from God, completely accurate.

When did I say it was? I'm not expecting America to make laws that everybody has to go to church. However, I don't want my nation to allow what I consider immorality. If people could all agree on morality, we wouldn't have problems.

They're related in the fact that they're all what I consider sexual sin. Some of those might be stretching it. Bestiality though really isn't. My college English teacher told me about a guy who had sex with a dead deer on the side of the road. He said he was drawn to it. I can look up the news article if you want me to. There's no way to prove he wasn't though. The argument could easily be the same for bestiality as it is for homosexuality.

I did not mean to offend, my words weren't chosen carefully. Sorry.

[/size]

I didn't say anything were wrong with these things (although I'm against all except for polygamy). Gaius Julius Caesar certainly didn't like it though...

There's no consent for horses to do work. They don't get paid, they don't get to go on strike (well, I guess stubborn ones can). Should they not be able to work anymore?

This pretty much sums up my belief on that. Also, the copied manuscripts that are found are extremely close to the original, and the few differences are minor and don't deal with moral and doctrinal issues. Also, from these manuscripts, anybody can translate them. I've taken a course in Koine Greek and have verified some passages myself. The English translations are usually pretty good. Translation has little to do with this argument for those that believe the Bible is inerrant.

That's a personal belief, not a fact.

Good catch.

If you kept reading to verse 32...

"Such things" could refer to the long list of sin mentioned in verses 29-30, but could also refer to homosexuality. You are right that there isn't a verse that says "Every homosexual relation is a sin" in the New Testament, as far as I know, but every time it is spoken of, it's in a negative light. There are the Leviticus passages that Fire Emblem Addict mentioned (who has an awesome avatar), but as you mentioned the old law has passed away.

Saying that its "wrong" because the Bible said so is not an argument.. What gives that book the privilege of deciding such things? If one wants to argue that homosexuality is "wrong", one must answer the question "in what way does it harm society". Unless someone can provide an answer to that, then there is no reason why it should not be practiced amongst those who wish to do so. Same goes for polygamy and incest (well there are genetic problems with incest with regards to the offspring so we're talking sex with contraception here). As for disregarding the laws of the Old Testament, does this mean that the 10 commandments are thereby void as well?

EDIT: Oh, and its also very nice to find another Doctor Who fan!

Edited May 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[Anouleth]

My other argument (separate from the Bible), is that it's a slippery slope. Once we let this in, there's no telling what's next. Incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality? I wouldn't be surprised.

Incest is in the Bible, so one might expect you'd be okay with it.

In addition, the idea behind permitting homosexual marriage is that it's a contract between two consenting adults. The same logic cannot be used for necrophilia or bestiality.

However, on a strictly political level, I would say it should be legalized.

Okay, that's pretty decent of you actually. You have the right to your opinion, and I think that it's admirable that even though you feel strongly about it, you don't try to force that opinion on others.

[Ring Wraith]

Saying that its "wrong" because the Bible said so is not an argument.. What gives that book the privilege of deciding such things? If one wants to argue that homosexuality is "wrong", one must answer the question "in what way does it harm society". Unless someone can provide an answer to that, then there is no reason why it should not be practiced amongst those who wish to do so. Same goes for polygamy and incest (well there are genetic problems with incest with regards to the offspring so we're talking sex with contraception here). As for disregarding the laws of the Old Testament, does this mean that the 10 commandments are thereby void as well?

The Bible is where I get my sense of morality. If you get your morals by asking yourself how things harm society, that's fine, but it's not how I define mine (no rhyme intended).

I'm not against polygamy. Not really. My opposition to incest is mostly because of the genetic problems, and I can't think of a time it's condemned in the New Testament, although I could be wrong. I mean, if all people came from two people, there's going to be some incest in there.

10 Commandments are void. However, I'm pretty sure all were reinstated in the new covenant, under the teachings of Jesus. Such as "It has been said to you, do not commit adultery, but I tell you the truth, if anybody looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or something like that. So they themselves are void, but the principles are not.

In addition, the idea behind permitting homosexual marriage is that it's a contract between two consenting adults. The same logic cannot be used for necrophilia or bestiality.

Again I say, horses don't give their consent to work. Why would they need to in marriage?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Ring Wraith

[Zanarkin]

The Bible is where I get my sense of morality. If you get your morals by asking yourself how things harm society, that's fine, but it's not how I define mine (no rhyme intended).

How is something that happens naturally inmoral? Besides you do know the bible is riled with hypocritical statements and isn't a good source to take morality from. Specially if it comes from the old testament.

Aye, Yahweh was not a pleasant fellow in any sense. The following quote from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion describes him perfectly: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

That doesn't sound moral to me. Specially since its referring to the same section from which you get your "homosexuality is wrong" moral.

10 Commandments are void. However, I'm pretty sure all were reinstated in the new covenant, under the teachings of Jesus. Such as "It has been said to you, do not commit adultery, but I tell you the truth, if anybody looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or something like that. So they themselves are void, but the principles are not.

According to my religion teachers, you are wrong. The Catholic church teaches that the rules for Christians to follow should be the beatitudes and the ten commandments. Saying the commandments are void means that its okay to go kill, steal, etc. I'm pretty sure your God wouldn't be pleased.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Jhen Mohran

[Phoenix Wright]

When did I say it was? I'm not expecting America to make laws that everybody has to go to church. However, I don't want my nation to allow what I consider immorality. If people could all agree on morality, we wouldn't have problems.

This comment made me cringe...almost.

You don't want "your" nation to allow immorality? Guess what: It ain't your nation. It's shared, and due to this, laws have to be made without the church. What religious people have effectively done in most states here and around the world is they have taken away the rights of human beings. I cannot fathom how people justify this with an invisible entity.