Is Banning Gay Marriage Christian?

[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Mar. 28 2004,2:42)]bad mood, good mood doesnt matter, your true beliefs are starting to show through.....
Click to expand...
You make it sound as though it's a bad thing. I've been telling you all my true beliefs from the get go; just not all at once.  In any case, it should not matter.  My arguements are not based on mere belief, they are based on facts and logic.  That may not be true for certain other members of this forum..which is probably why this is so difficult.

(Edit: Actually now I remember...when I did that posting a while back I was testing the water, so to speak...trying to see what this place was like more than anything else.. I suppose I was wrong to impose that upon you all, and again, I am sorry..but..well..there it is.)
 
No posty here lately...I wonder why that is... Could it be because the opposition was scared away by my uber long post of doom? I surely hope not...that would depress me...that you all are so rigid in your thinking that you just say "nanananana" when someone starts to make sense. Or maybe I'm making an ill-founded assumption..and it will now cost me much animosity from my fellow forumnites.. Oh well...worth a shot anyway.
 
Well, I guess people are still a little cagey as to your true motivations, mate. Tends to damp down open discussion... ;)
 
i wouldnt stand over and gloat... its not your right to be here, and its by the graces of the adminship that you may still beable to post. so dont go pushing it...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Mar. 28 2004,11:31)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Remove quote of my previous post
Click to expand...
But then we don't prevent fat people from marrying each other, now do we?  I'm sorry if I offended you with my incorrect sequencing of sex genes...it's been a while since I have taken biology, and I wasn't sure.  I do find it kind of humorous that you chose to attack that particular thing that I said, as opposed to certain other things...  You are not argueing against Mr. Bill; you are argueing against Mr. Bill's position on homosexuality.  

Your point is that it's not controlled by genetics...and yet..they've all but proven that genetics play a major role in determining sexual orientation.  The twin studies alone reveal that.  But again, of course it's not only genetics...there are environmental causes as well.  As I said in my first post here, think of it as genetics deciding a person's tendency to be attracted to a certain type of person, and depending on environmental contexts, that person will go that route or that person will not.  Is this what you mean by choice?  It's not really a choice..as the choice's very existance is predisposed by genetics and other biological factors.  But if you want to call it that, go ahead.  What you should not do, however, is discriminate homosexuals on the grounds of their "immoral 'choice.'"  

Yes, most of them are older studies, but they are still credible.  You're going to need better reason than that to discount them...  My point on you 'picking and choosing' was that you tend to ignore evidence that disagrees with your arguement and focus on evidence that agrees, regardless of abundance on either side.  I did not say it was a pro-genetic article; I gave it to you to prove my point that homosexuals are perfectly fine parents.  Contrary to your fervent belief, children are not necessarily best off in a home with a mother and a father.

"what about marriage as a universal social institution developed for the natural protection of children.  Who are we to destroy an ages-old tradition?"  

You keep saying this.  First of all, as I just said...the protection of children is not needed, nor is that why marriage is the way it is.  It's been that way for 'ages' becuase it's a decision of arbitration!  It means absolutely nothing that it's been the same way for thousands of years!  Of course it's always been between a man and a women (except in certain cultures, as in Greece)--when else in the world's history has there been enough social freedom and liberty for homosexuals to dare even attempt this?  Who are we to 'destroy an ages old tradition?'  Exactly the right people to do it; it should have been done a long time ago.  There always hae been homosexuals.  There always will be homosexuals.  It's not their fault they are the way they are.  They should be allowed to marry.  Deal with it, but don't inhibit their ability to share affection at the same time.
Click to expand...
uhm..nowhere was there an attack on you about which genes were which.  I pointed out a correction, but that was not an attack. The point of the post was that their would be no way for there to be a double XX male (withstanding 3-sex chromosome mutations), and if there was, it would just be fully male.

You say that it's all but proven that it's controlled by genetics and then you point at identical twins, which when 1 is gay, the other is not always gay.  Seems to me, that's better proof that it's not genetic.  If it were, then that instance would be overwhelmingly where both twins were gay.  but those studies (if memory serves) the twins came out about even on the gay/straight when 1 of them is gay

My point about the older articles, is that they were mainly taken done back in the late 80's early-mid 90's when there was great political pressure to appease homosexuals. Any articles about such studies would have been influenced by that environment, plus they are lacking the most recent studies which disprove the earlier studies.

Now, how exactly am I discriminating against gays?  They can marry. They just have to choose someone of the opposite sex to marry.  Whether they marry or not, has no bearing WHATSOEVER on how much affection they can/cannot show.

Now, for your social freedom, homosexuality was accepted quite welcomely in Egyptian, Grecian, Roman and a few other cultures.  Yet marriage was still between a man and a woman.  Marriage, being between members of the opposite sex, is, and has always been a human universal.  It does not matter how accepted or unaccepted homosexuality is, marriage is for members of the opposite sex.

Why are you so eager to destroy a tradition that has served humanity for ages?
 
There could be no such thing as a YY male. The Y chromosome is the smallest chromosome and it contains only a few functional genes. XX is female, XY is male and it would be practically impossible for a zygote to end up with a double YY configuration. That would require two non-disjunction events combining. A YY chromosomal configuration would not produce a viable zygote.

As for the studies on homosexuality - if you want to make the claim that homosexual advocacy groups were trying to influence research on homosexuality, you had better be honest and admit that they were trying to suppress any research into the causes of homosexuality as they believed this was an attempt to find a biological explanation for their "mental illness" and subsequently, a cure for it. They did not want homosexuality to be labeled as a mental illness that they had to be cured of.

The 52% concordance of monozygotic twins vs. 22% concordance for dizygotic twins completely supports a genetic influence on homosexuality. What is it that is so difficult to understand about the concept of genetic-environmental interaction?
 
I appologize for the delay in my reply...I've been in France the past week.

Ok, lets just drop the YY thing. Of course there's no way that a YY can ever come into being; it's a biological impossibility. I was just informally 'what if'ing.

No, the twin studies are extremely significant in proving that there is a large genetic aspect to homosexuality. Please consider the following: Homosexuals make up approximately 3.33% of the world's population. The way you are thinking, the odds of an identical twin being homosexual should be 3.33%, regardless of genetic background (ie the other twin being homosexual or not). And yet, as these studies show, 52% of the twins of homosexuals were also homosexual. Yes, about half were also not homosexual, but there is clearly genetic influence present here. Identical twins exhibit extraordinarily large genetic simularities, and so they are ideal targets for genetic studies. There's no better example that I know of...so if you cannot accept this...then we've got problems. Yes, there are environmental factors--there has to be--but they are obviously not the whole story. Most evidence is showing that it's less of an influence, but first thing's first.

Yes, many of those studies I cited were rather old, but I'd wager that most all are still valid. You say that they are not...but the burden of proof is on you this time I'm afraid.. Please show me these more recent studies..seriously..I always like to read up on this stuff.

You are discriminating against gays becuase it is demeaning and insulting that they are not allowed to have the same 'calibur' of relationship as a straight couple. Seperate but equal is inherently unequal. Yes they can marry....but only to those toward whom they have no romantic attraction. This is fair? Of course, before you can accept this, you must first accept that homosexuality is at least in part natural...which is a roadblock I do not believe we have yet crossed.

Yes, homosexual marriages were accepted and even encouraged in some cultures, and yes heterosexuality still prevailed. But isn't this just another hit on your theory of environmental control? And in any case, it really doesn't matter--of course heterosexuality continued to dominate, just as right handedness has continued to dominate, people are predisposed to being that way. And even though homosexuals and left handers were condemned, both continued to exist. Why is there a minority? What is their purpose? Do they have a purpose, do they need one? It does not matter; they are here, and they aren't going anywhere, nor is their nature their doing. You are drawing a conclusion from a miscontrued string of logic...yes, homosexuality has historically been a minority...no, that does not mean that marriage is 'meant for members of the opposite sex'.

Yes, it marriage is a tradition, and yes, it has been around for ages, but again, this does not matter. I..don't want to delve deep into this..I won't be able to stop myself. The point is, I'm not saying that marriage isn't important--it is--and that's why it should be open to the minority group as well. Their entrance into the concept of marriage may go against what the bible says (although I'd just like to point out...the bible also says that it is a sin to wear wool and linen in the same clothing..), but it will not destroy the tradition; it will only bring people closer together in the end in my opinion. What, exactly, are you so afraid of?

Eon- My 'true' motivations? I fail to see why I'm coming across as such a shady character..I'm being very open and honest...I'm not trying to pull anyone's leg. And anyway, I fail to see why it matters what my personallity is like; my arguements are sound as far as I can tell, and shouldnt that be all that matters in such a discussion?

LionOfJudah- I wasn't 'gloating' as you say...I just extremely dislike it when people turn their heads to sense in favor of a predisposed notion, regardless of evidence to the contrary. It's called belief preservation...we all do it...but we don't have to like it. I'm fairly sure it's too late on that note for certain people...but..oh well...not much more I can do.
 
My apologies Bill - that was a very reasoned and well thought out post. I agree with both content and sentiment.

<holds out hand> Can we start afresh - i think I jumped to some conclusions based on insufficient data.


Eon
 
Ah don't worry about it, no harm done. I haven't been around here very long anyway, so you all haven't had a chance to really get to know me yet.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ April 11 2004,8:47)]Yes, it marriage is a tradition, and yes, it has been around for ages, but again, this does not matter.  I..don't want to delve deep into this..I won't be able to stop myself.  The point is, I'm not saying that marriage isn't important--it is--and that's why it should be open to the minority group as well.  Their entrance into the concept of marriage may go against what the bible says (although I'd just like to point out...the bible also says that it is a sin to wear wool and linen in the same clothing..), but it will not destroy the tradition; it will only bring people closer together in the end in my opinion.  What, exactly, are you so afraid of?  
Click to expand...
I do not think we are afraid of anything.  One of the major issues is that scripture says homosexuality is wrong and a sin, and that any sex outside of marriage is a sin.  

Let me trying using a analogy.  As I understand it rugby players and fans are quite dedicated to the game, some look down on American football players that choose to wear pads.

Now lets say a group of people like the game of rugby, and want to make their own rugby league but change the rules a little.  The rules in this league are that pads are mandatory, and only minimal contact is acceptable.

Will the new rugby league be accepted by normal rugby players and fans, no because it is not real rugby.

The problem is the same with same sex marriages, they want to have a union sanctified by God after He has already decreed that such unions are against His will.
 
You cannot read the bible as you would the constitution…strict constructionism cannot work with it, as there are far too many ludicrous demands and contradictions in its various books…as I’m sure many of you are aware of.. Am I saying that the bible isn’t relevant? No, but what this is about is a government attempting to place a ban on marriage on a principle largely based on a religious belief system—and an arbitrary one at that. A breach of separation between church and state? Of the separate but equal supreme court decision? You bet your polka dotted pants it is… Not to mention the fact that homosexuals are largely so by nature..which goes against the idea that all men are created in God’s image… It just doesn’t add up.
 
And while he's elaborating, why don't you respond to the points he raised, Whitestone?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Will the new rugby league be accepted by normal rugby players and fans, no because it is not real rugby.
Click to expand...

Yes, rugby players will accept the formation of another rugby leauge; the rugby players are happy let people who'd rather not play rugby play whatever they want. The rugby players are tolerant and provided that they're allowed to continue their game of rugby, they don't mind what others choose to play.

Please explain how your interpretation of the analogy was correct and mine was in error, given that what I've described is what actually happens in reality... and unless you've recently moved to a Christian theocracy, arguments from the Bible don't hold in wider (secular) society. You can't ban homosexual marriage because of something the Bible says any more than somone else can ban heterosexual marriage because their own religious text states that it's a sin. That's what secular society is about.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] they want to have a union sanctified by God after He has already decreed that such unions are against His will.
Click to expand...

Okay... problem solved; they can get married by a lawyer. Right?
 
In response to your first question. I agree that rugby players and fans would not mind if another league was created or if people wanted to play a game like rugby. However if they wanted to start a new leagure and play a game like rugby but they nerfed it, and still claim it was real rugby I think there would be a problem.

In response to your second question. In general secular society does not acknowlegde the existance of God or obey His commands. However I live in a country that was founded on Christian principals, and as a country seems oposed to the Same sex marriages.

As to someone getting married by a lawyer, to me that is a civil union and not a marriage. Still a sin, but not tainting the sanctity of marriage. That is just my opinion though.

Whitestone
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I agree that rugby players and fans would not mind if another league was created or if people wanted to play a game like rugby. However if they wanted to start a new leagure and play a game like rugby but they nerfed it, and still claim it was real rugby I think there would be a problem.
Click to expand...

Who would have the problem? What would the problem be? How does this translate to the issue of homosexual marriage that it's supposed to illustrate?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In general secular society does not acknowlegde the existance of God or obey His commands. However I live in a country that was founded on Christian principals, and as a country seems oposed to the Same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

I'm not American, and I'm not an expert on American history, but I thought that your founders were largely deist and that the country was founded on principles of freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. Regardless of the opinions of your founders, or the general view on homosexual marriage at the time, you'll need to argue against homosexual marriage for now.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As to someone getting married by a lawyer, to me that is a civil union and not a marriage.
Click to expand...

How is that so? Plenty of heterosexual couples are married by lawyers. Married, not joined in civil union. If you say that marriages performed outside of the church don't count and are actually something else, such as civil union, you're claiming that marriage belongs to a single religion. Have I misinterpreted you, or is that actually where you were going with this?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Whitestone @ April 21 2004,10:23)]Please elaborate on the contradictions and ludicrous demands.
Click to expand...
I don't know of that many off hand..to be honest, I didn't know there were so many contradictions in the bible until I came here and read Timor's site.  Here's one I found off a google that's pretty good: http://www.infidels.org/library....ns.html  As for the demands part..I already mentioned the wool and linen in the same clothing thing as well as, of course, the 'made in god's image' and homosexuals being natural thing, but I also know that the bible says that it is a sin to divorce your husband and marry again, that adultery is punishable by death, etc.  I'm no bible scholar....my point was that becuase of this sort of thing that's found in the Bible, it cannot be taken as written in every conceivable instance.  The Bible may be the ultimate authority for Christians, but you cannot expect non-christians as well to abide by its proscriptions.
 
The thing I don't get is why Homosexuality is suddenly a worse sin than all the others. When people find out that the Priest is an alcoholic, suspected of financial irregularities, blaspheme's, works in the garden on Sunday, doesn't like his parents etc then it's "love the sinner and hate the sin" and everything carry's on as normal. But homosexuality - that's a different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top