Gay marriage with guest Jesse Cowell

[Rian]

I believe you forgot the KKK, NHB



I'll definitely get to your question before I leave on vacation, Sue.

[stickmangrit]

I believe you forgot the KKK, NHB

hell, he could have swapped that for the Taliban and had three organizations that clain Jesus Christ and the Christian God as their source of spiritual guidance. funny how that shit works, huh?

[Rian]

That's why Jesus said that not all that call him "Lord" are known to him.

Evil people are into power, and if they think that a veneer of Christianity (without the substance) will give them that, then they'll grab it.

[Rian]

Thank you very much! It is indeed very difficult, but I do it out of love and concern for others, even though that's hard for some people to believe. I'm hoping that at least the atheists will see me as wrong but kind, instead of wrong and hateful, and I'm hoping that they'll see that IF my worldview is correct, THEN I'm also objectively correct about gay marriage.

I know what you mean, but that seems to me to be far too similar to saying that IF Hitler's worldview was correct, THEN he was also objectively correct about Jews. I don't think he was. Working backwards, I'd say Hitler's opinion about Jews is de facto evidence that his worldview was NOT correct - even IF he was convinced it was.

I like how you worked that backwards, and I'd agree with you! I think that's a good way to analyze worldviews.

But don't you feel it's not "right" to declare someone else's worldview to be "wrong"?

But if we think we're probably right, then by definition we think others with different worldviews are probably wrong. Most of the time, it doesn't matter, but in some things, like when it's time to vote, it DOES matter.

Help me out here, since IF your worldview is NOT correct, then that would change things significantly.

I agree!

And then if we could convince you to CHANGE your worldview a little bit so that others would NOT consider it so "wrong", would you be able to do that? Could you modify your worldview?

Jim

Yes, I could, if I saw enough evidence that it was wrong. I just don't see that evidence yet.

[Rian]

Rian,
Before you leave for vacation...
I still don't understand why it's important today that marriages written about in bible times were between men and women, or more accurately, males and females--since the "brides" were many times young girls.

Yes, that's more common in Eastern societies, and people didn't live as long back then, either.

The ancient biblical authorship only acknowledged heterosexual marriage unions as honored and blessed by God since they obviously, for whatever reasons, didn't agree with homosexual relations--any more than the eating pork and certain seafoods or the picking up of sticks on the Sabbath. But remember, the bible also speaks of marriage as something prearranged by fathers in many cases or the girl being bought from her father by the man either in the form or work or money/possessions. Females were considered property and their purpose was primarily to provide sex and (male) children.

Surely you would not suggest we should go back to these other archaic, biblical laws, would you? You certainly would not agree that your daughter should be bought/sold for marriage, and stoned if she were suspected by her husband to not have been a virgin?, right? Or that people should be killed for eating food that was considered unclean or for doing any sort of work on the Sabbath? So why, if you are able and willing to put these other things (and many others) in perspective to the times they were written and consider the pervasive societal outlook on such issues during the particular era, are you not able to do the same with same sex marriage? Although I understand and accept that your beliefs fit according to your Christian worldview, do you think it's possible that you came to this WV by what you were taught concerning the contemporary Christian views of the validity of these ancient "moral" laws, rather than by applying your own objective reasoning toward each of them on the same basis?

Briefly, Christians are not under the laws of the OT, so they don't apply, although you can look back and see their purpose in establishing the nation of Israel. Some were specifically repealed in the NT, too - the dietary laws, for example. And in one sense, the laws were made even "harder" - not only is adultery wrong, but looking lustfully on a woman that isn't your wife is wrong, according to Jesus - it's the same as adultery, in his view. What was law in the OT has moved into heart, in a sense, in the NT. Jesus sums up the law and prophets in those famous two commands - love God and love your neighbor. Yet loving your neighbor doesn't mean letting him get off scot free with raping your daughter ...

It's difficult, and I realize that I may be wrong about the gay marriage issue. But please remember that this thread will give a false sense of my priorities. I don't support any "stop gay marriage" groups, financially or otherwise. I'd prefer to give money (and I do) to organizations that help poor children. Once this thread is over, I doubt if the subject will come up much for me. I'm no hard-core "against gay marriage " person. I do think it's wrong, and it falls within my area of votable issues, but I'm not one of those doomsday-sayers about it. I think it will be in the US in a matter of a few years - well, so be it. If enough people support it, then it will pass eventually.

What I've tried to do on this thread is point out the errors that I see in people's arguments for gay marriage, and show that though I'm against it, I'm against it in the same way that others are against things that they vote against. I've not said one hateful thing against gays, because I don't FEEL hateful things against gays, and those people that call themselves Christian and say that "God hates fags!" are an embarrassment to Christianity. I just sincerely think that my definition of marriage is right, just like gay marriage supporters think that THEIR definition of marriage is right - and both of us base this opinion on what we think of as harmful, based upon our worldviews, which none of us can prove or disprove, anyway.

I hope this makes sense, it's late and I'm tired.

Been there ...

Have a great vacation!

Thank you!

And now I believe I'm done. As I said on the other thread, I can't keep up with 7+ people on the other side, so I have to just call an arbitrary stopping point, and our upcoming two-week 4th of July vacation seems a good time. I wish there wasn't so much anger in this discussion - I was trying to make better relations between the two sides. Maybe I failed - I don't know - but I tried.

[mikedsjr]

Rian, Have fun on vacation.....I hear what you are saying...if the last post sums up what you are trying to say, then i agree.I do think it is just one of the things that are assaulting the family. The problem is Christians* are acting no better. Divorce is assaulting the family too. The divorce issue is more of my battle ground. I've have some big dragout arguments with people over divorce and the chaos it is having on our families. I flat out think it is wrong too and against God's will. I don't understand how Christians reconcile their stance on that and the bible.

If I could vote on the divorce issue, I would say Hell NO! people can't get divorced. Learn to love each other. Then I would vote no on gay marraige.

[Rian]

thank you

[darkumbra]

Briefly, Christians are not under the laws of the OT, so they don't apply, although you can look back and see their purpose in establishing the nation of Israel.

Hmm... really? Ten Commandments?

[stickmangrit]

Briefly, Christians are not under the laws of the OT, so they don't apply, although you can look back and see their purpose in establishing the nation of Israel.

Hmm... really? Ten Commandments?

didn't you get the memo? the ten commandments are vague and deity-neutral rules for living. that's why we should be able to put them up in courtrooms.

oh, and rian:

Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

and before you start quoting paul back to me, ask yourself when people claiming to be prophets ordained by visions of god only they can witness making claims in direct contradiction with words given by god directly(through jesus) started getting treated as more holy?

[spongebob]

Uh, no ... I guess you're missing MY point. You can't force someone to follow a religion (or any belief system/worldview, including atheism) on the inside, which is where it counts. But I think it's time to close down here, anyway - we'll just have to give up.

This is circular. I think this line began with the argument that it does not seem reasonable to force people to practice religious tenets that they do not adhere to. I agree that you can’t make people believe in a religion. But my original argument was that if you are going to legally require people to follow a particular religious practice, then you might as well force them to be part of the religion, whether they actually believe it or not. I’m not saying we should actually do this, but that having legal restrictions based on a religion is tantamount to this very thing. We are requiring people to accept religious tenets and I consider that inappropriate.

You can't "force" people into Christianity, although you can penalize some behaviors that are against Christian ideals (if you steal something, you'll go to jail) or force something that LOOKS like something that a Christian would actually DO ("bow your head and close your eyes and put your hands together or I'll shoot you!" - but that doesn't mean that they're praying).

It's no red herring - it's very obvious to me, and should be to you, too, that you can't force a belief, although all of us force some tenets of our belief system on others (laws against stealing, for example).

But theft if not an exclusively Christian ideal. It’s universally unacceptable.

Again, you can't force someone to be a Christian. All of us can and do force some of the tenets of our belief systems on others thorough our votes.

Right, we agree that you can’t force people to believe something, but you are avoiding the point. You are saying: “If it’s good for people, we should make them do it.” Right? So, by that context, we should make them go to church and pray and read the bible, right? I'm not really trying to get you to agree with this ridiculous concept. We both agree that it is unenforcable. What I'm attempting to do is get you to see that laws based purely on religious contexts are not appropriate for the general public because of our diversity. We have to keep these laws abated for freedom of religion to flourish. The more laws that are based on one particular religion, the more other religions are opressed. Does this make sense? Ultimately, I agree that lots of religious ideas are good ideas--love thy neighbor? Yeah, that's a great idea--but the law is not the place for most of those things to be enforced. I think it is important to respect our parents, but I think a law requiring this is utter stupidity. They must earn that respect and we must be taught to respect them by our parents. There are so many facets to culture and society, so many subtle wrinkles. To think that we can legislate our way to utopia is a 19th century idea that has long past its expiration date.

I think that most laws are based on the Golden Rule, which also happens to be in a religion.

Good observation; I agree. Where these objective overlap we are all happy.

I don't think you have any reason to agree with me. And I'm sure that I don't agree with some of your votes, either.

Thanks, but isn’t that second part just tossing vinegar into the pudding? Just tit or tat? This isn’t a competition here, not a tug of war. You don’t have to one up me every time. We’re looking for common ground, if any exists.

What non-Xtian world view reason should we consider to ban gay marriage?

I can't offer any, as I said before. And you can't offer any reason that I think is valid to vote FOR gay marriage.

Again, not a competition. I’m not trying to win a race here; I’m looking for understanding of your wants/needs. When you and Wonders began this journey, you both gave me the impression there was some non-religious reason that I should consider rejecting gay marriage. I want to know what it is. Now I understand that your reasoning is purely religious and hey, I’m not bashing your for it. I’m fine with that even though I disagree with you. I have less respect for Wonders for being so coy and gutless. At least you admitted your reasoning, though it took a long, long time.

I do think that Sue's argument from the biblical perspective should give you pause. And I also offer the argument that god would want everyone to be happy and to love one another so long as they aren’t harming others. You may disagree, but I think this is a reasonable argument.

[spongebob]

Rian, Have fun on vacation.....I hear what you are saying...if the last post sums up what you are trying to say, then i agree.I do think it is just one of the things that are assaulting the family. The problem is Christians* are acting no better. Divorce is assaulting the family too. The divorce issue is more of my battle ground. I've have some big dragout arguments with people over divorce and the chaos it is having on our families. I flat out think it is wrong too and against God's will. I don't understand how Christians reconcile their stance on that and the bible.

If I could vote on the divorce issue, I would say Hell NO! people can't get divorced. Learn to love each other. Then I would vote no on gay marraige.

That's an interesting comment. The obvious result of banning divorce would be that people would either not get married or would abandon marriage and their spouse and find new mates anyway. "Learning to love each other" is an oversimplified solution to a many faceted problem.

[stickmangrit]

If I could vote on the divorce issue, I would say Hell NO! people can't get divorced. Learn to love each other.

wow, the dumbass is strong with this one.

so abused wives should learn to love cleanin or learn to love their husband's fist in their stomach? they should learn to love the sexual abuse of their children? husbands should learn to love their wife's infidelities?

just making sure we understand each other.

[mikedsjr]

If I could vote on the divorce issue, I would say Hell NO! people can't get divorced. Learn to love each other.

wow, the dumbass is strong with this one.

so abused wives should learn to love cleanin or learn to love their husband's fist in their stomach? they should learn to love the sexual abuse of their children? husbands should learn to love their wife's infidelities?

just making sure we understand each other.

Just see my real position in D&R. I was more less trying to make a point about why I wouldn't vote against gay marriage. D&R is an issue within the church.

[stickmangrit]

If I could vote on the divorce issue, I would say Hell NO! people can't get divorced. Learn to love each other.

wow, the dumbass is strong with this one.

so abused wives should learn to love cleanin or learn to love their husband's fist in their stomach? they should learn to love the sexual abuse of their children? husbands should learn to love their wife's infidelities?

just making sure we understand each other.

Just see my real position in D&R. I was more less trying to make a point about why I wouldn't vote against gay marriage. D&R is an issue within the church.

my bad. totally forgot about that. nice satire though.

[whoosanightowl]

Stickman wrote:

and before you start quoting paul back to me, ask yourself when people claiming to be prophets ordained by visions of god only they can witness making claims in direct contradiction with words given by god directly(through jesus) started getting treated as more holy?

Exactly! Paul is probably my biggest problem with Christianity.