12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal

[EricBess]

Istanbul - please refer to the nearest mirror. mythosx is being far more sane and rational in the though he puts into his posts than you are currently and it isn't flattering. "Well, that's just stupid" is not an enlightened response to someone just because you don't agree with what they are saying.

SeFRo - just because some additions are recognized as being necessary to treat by society and others aren't does not imply that those things are not additions. There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that certain types of sexual activity are certainly addicting. Porn is a simple example.

Killer Joe - I don't usually bring this up, but Sodom and Gomorrah had sexual devency problems and God did eventually take action there (though it's not specific, so it is arguable what behavior was being referred to, but we do know what "sodomy" means). Noah was also trying to warn people about being good to (though sexual behavior isn't specifically mentioned in that story that I recall), and by the time they decided it might be a good idea to listen, look what happened to them.

Yes, scriptures are full of stories of God talking to man, but for some reason, society seems to feel that just because he hasn't appeared in person "...to me...", he must not be doing much recently. If you read the scriptures a bit more carefully, I think you will find that most of the time, a very limited number of people were actually aware of much of what was going on.

What always seems to get me is that the people who seem to be the most outspoken about who is an A-hole and who isn't always seem to define an A-hole as someone who has a different opinion than they do.

Guys, do we want to approach things rationally or do we just want to insult everyone else. I'm sure you all have valid opinions and viewpoints, but I would prefer that you start posting them instead of just insulting everyone else.

 

[Notepad]

/me fully concurs with Eric on that last point.

On the point of addiction, I agree with you. In fact, it is possible to become addicted to nearly anything. However, what I was saying in my last post was that habits, cravings, or just normal behaviors are in no way addictions. Addiction itself is something that would consume one's thoughts until one was feeding one's addiction. Yes, for the most part the word "addiction" can be negative and destructive, such as drug addiction. Sometimes, it can be time-wasting but not necessarily harmful, such as addiction to computers and whatnot. It could be possible to be addicted to food products...say chewing gum or M&Ms, but if a person would be addicted to those things, they'd focus on them all the time, even suffering poor moods when they are not able to get such things.

That said, yeah, people can have addictions to sexual things, such as certain behaviors during sex or even types of porn. However, this does not mean homosexuality is an addiction in and of itself. Certainly, people can be addicted to gay lifestyle, sex life, or whatnot, but I think those are the exception rather than the rule.

Not wanting to jump into the whole gay marriage vs. protection of marriage argument again. However, when I saw ludicrous arguments made on the basis of addiction, with the word itself being totally misused, I had to step in about it.

 

[Killer Joe]

The a-hole comment only applies to those who veiw it as it pertains to themselves. I have been there and know what it feels like so that's why I didn't target anyone specifically. Actually, the a-hole comment wasn't aimed at any one person specifically in this discussion. Just like you didn't target me specifically with your a-hole response paragraph .

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by SeFRo
/me fully concurs with Eric on that last point.

On the point of addiction, I agree with you. In fact, it is possible to become addicted to nearly anything. However, what I was saying in my last post was that habits, cravings, or just normal behaviors are in no way addictions. Addiction itself is something that would consume one's thoughts until one was feeding one's addiction. Yes, for the most part the word "addiction" can be negative and destructive, such as drug addiction. Sometimes, it can be time-wasting but not necessarily harmful, such as addiction to computers and whatnot. It could be possible to be addicted to food products...say chewing gum or M&Ms, but if a person would be addicted to those things, they'd focus on them all the time, even suffering poor moods when they are not able to get such things.

That said, yeah, people can have addictions to sexual things, such as certain behaviors during sex or even types of porn. However, this does not mean homosexuality is an addiction in and of itself. Certainly, people can be addicted to gay lifestyle, sex life, or whatnot, but I think those are the exception rather than the rule.

Not wanting to jump into the whole gay marriage vs. protection of marriage argument again. However, when I saw ludicrous arguments made on the basis of addiction, with the word itself being totally misused, I had to step in about it.

I actually do know people who live off of raw food diets. Although I do think it is hard pressed to define cooked foods as an addiction (I had a hard time dealing with this at first myself), it is actually quite real if you sit and think about it. Follow this line of logic, you don't need to eat cooked foods to survive. There are many foods you can eat raw, i.e. nuts, fruits, so on and so forth. You actually are eating less healthy foods when you cook it. And your body will craved cooked foods when you try to give it up. I have tried and man I gotta say I was flipping out for a warm bowl of oatmeal. OATMEAL! I have never craved oatmeal but hey as long as it was cooked I wanted to put it in my mouth.

It has been suggested that it is an addiction by some doctor's in the psychological field. I don't pull this stuff out of my rear. Go to your local college and do some research. It just goes against popular opinion so it gets suppressed. Most of you don't like it when different groups in the past suppressed things that you liked. So please don't be hypocritical and suppress things that you don't like. The idea of being and addicition is based because the homosexual person believes that it is a part of them just like a junkie believes that he needs crack to the point where every cell in his body will involuntarily go and seek out crack. Just cuz you are an addict doesn't mean you throw your life in the garbage and what not. I know plenty of succesful alcoholics.

Killer Joe - If you don't know that any sexual deviation is wrong please refer to what Paul talks about in Romans if you are christian. Don't bother if you aren't. Also pointing out a wrong is different from judging. If a cop pulls you over for speeding he is telling you, you broke the rules. The judge will determine if you are guilty or not. Please don't misinterept the part about not judging and judging.

 

[Spiderman]

Just want to support the "keep it civil" speech...

 

[Notepad]

Agreed, Spidey.

I still say food choices are far less addictions and much more cultural habits. Take combing one's hair. You groom yourself regularly in most cultures, ours for example. If you stop shaving and combing your hair, you'd probably feel like a grungy scurby dog. Within a short time you may be paranoid about your looks, even rubbing the stubble on your chin out of disdain for its unkempt existence. This in no way means you're addicted to shaving and combing your hair. Neither are you addicted to cleaning your rear after going to the bathroom. Cultural habits.

Psychologists classifying cultural habits as addictions is like a biologist classifying fire as an animal. Yes, fire is born, dies, eats, excretes, and even procreates. But it is not an animal.

Not trying to quell new ideas. I just never bought the whole "fire is an animal" idea, and never will buy anything as silly as it.

Now as to homosexuality being an addiction, I'll grant you there are probably many cases of gays being addicted to certain sexual behavior, just as there are many straight people addicted to certain sexual behavior. This does not mean all sexual behaviors are a matter of addiction. Straight guys can love anal sex or oral sex with their girlfriends/wives, and not be addicted to it.

 

[Killer Joe]

Judging: So we're the cops and GOD is the judge. Is this what you're saying?

If that's it, then I can agree somewhat on that point. As long as we all get the chance to be cops.

About rules: I once knew a guy who found a scripture in the King James version that he said claimed that people born with physical and/or mental defects are not GOD's children but are Satan's minions. He showed it to me and there was absolutly no mention of it to that affect. It was his interpretation of the scripture and THAT bothered me.

I will check out Paul in Romans regardless of my relgious faith.

Thanks for not hammering me, I will do the same.

 

[mythosx]

I wouldn't put all my faith into the King James version. There are minor errors that may be twisted around. What do you expect from a bible that was commisioned by a king who wanted to break away from the church cuz they wouldn't let him get a divorce? The thing about the defects and stuff. I believe in the Bible god says that He causes them to happen. He allows people to be handicapped and what not to serve a special purpose in their own ways. He also says to not whine about it.

Sefro - I don't think so. As much as I wish that were the case, modern psyche is shifting back to alot of Freud and genetic causes. Recent psychology trends have been pushing to label habits and deviant behaviors as addictions and diseases. President Clinton was labeled by many Psycologists to have "sexual addiction". This is common knowledge. Although I do not agree with this in anyway, but it is mostly from the same camp who are intensely for nature over nurture. They kind of take the responsibility out of decision making and all our choices are the result of our genetic code. I haven't seen much evidence to support it, but it is one of the main camps of modern Psych. To be fair on this matter like I stated long time ago. There are studies that show contradictory positions on this matter. I have yet to see a conclusive and unbiased result.

 

[Istanbul]

Why should I bother to present my viewpoint in a fair and rational manner? I did that. For weeks. Proved mythosx wrong countless times, and I guarantee you that not a word of it sank in...

But hey, whichever. I will say this much:

The Bible was written 2000 years ago. It's been translated at least a dozen times. Have you ever played a game of Telephone? Ever tried to run something through the Babelfish scrambler? I'd be willing to say that if you can't read Hebrew, you don't KNOW what the Bible originally said.

And I will restate my original point:

One group's religion should NEVER dictate legal policy.

 

[Spiderman]

That's fine, if it doesn't sink in, it doesn't sink in. But I don't think there's a need to start presenting your view in a disrespectful manner because of that.

 

[Istanbul]

You want disrespectful? "One group should have rights and the other group shouldn't, because my religion says so." That's the apex of disrespectful.

 

[Notepad]

Originally posted by Istanbul
The Bible was written 2000 years ago. It's been translated at least a dozen times. Have you ever played a game of Telephone? Ever tried to run something through the Babelfish scrambler? I'd be willing to say that if you can't read Hebrew, you don't KNOW what the Bible originally said.

You got it right on the head, as far as using the Bible as a reference is concerned. A lot of versions now have etomology notes at the bottom of pages, but even they say "Well this could either mean 'the flames of hell' or 'the green pastures' and we aren't sure because the word before it could either have meant 'beware' or 'follow me' so it's anybody's guess." Well, not really that extreme. I AM exagerating, but you get the idea.

Plus, there is the whole thing about it being the Word of God. A lot of the content is "Well, Saul/Paul said such and such when he was decrying the fact he fed Christians to his people as Spam before he converted" but then that would be Saul/Paul's words of guilt, confession, or at the very best, inspiration from the lord to never do cruel things? Would it not in any optimistic case be considered the direct word of God?

Probably a side rant. Trust me, I'm critical with every religious text. Shoulda seen the scathing review I gave the Bagavad Ghita (sp?) when I had to read it in world religions class. So I'm not trying to be hostile to Christianity here.

But, if you want the "most direct word of God" follow the guy who's closest to him, eh? Follow only what Jesus said and taught. And he taught compassion and love for everyone.

So rather than condemn gays as evil, love them as fellow human beings. Try to be a beacon of light that proves your way of doing things is the best way, and convert by compassionate example, not by force.

Of course, this does nothing to settle the legal questions of gay marriage. What would Jesus do? Sadly, he didn't really say anything about marriage rights for gays...as far as I remember.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Istanbul
Why should I bother to present my viewpoint in a fair and rational manner? I did that. For weeks. Proved mythosx wrong countless times, and I guarantee you that not a word of it sank in...

But hey, whichever. I will say this much:

The Bible was written 2000 years ago. It's been translated at least a dozen times. Have you ever played a game of Telephone? Ever tried to run something through the Babelfish scrambler? I'd be willing to say that if you can't read Hebrew, you don't KNOW what the Bible originally said.

And I will restate my original point:

One group's religion should NEVER dictate legal policy.

You haven't proved me wrong one time, you responded to everything with sarcasm and casual disregard as hogwash without even looking into or considering the possiblity of. You haven't provided any refrences or proof. The only link was provided by Chaos Turtle. If you were writing a college paper you wouldn't pass. Saying "Cuz I said so" only works for Stone Cold Steve Austin. And that usually only works when he is talking about beer and the consuming of said beverage. Oh by the way, in my church we do study ancient hebrew and ancient greek, so yes we do know what the bible says. You keep saying that it is wrong for a group to impose its beliefs on people. That in itself is a belief that belongs to a group. And at this point you are trying to impose upon me. Do you see the hypocrasy? By the way, don't say "self-evident" there is no such thing. Not when you are debating anything of worth. Especially, cross-cultural, philosophical, and religious matters.

This next portion address religious issues don't read unless you really want to.

Sefro - good points, What would Jesus do? I don't believe he would condemn people, i.e. stand in front of supermarkets and tell everyone they are going to hell. But he sure as hell wouldn't be saying it was ok. He wouldn't be telling people it was ok to be gay. And that is a key point. Just because I don't condemn people doesn't mean you support it. At no point did I ever say that homosexuals are evil. At no point have I ever physically attacked or verbally attacked anyone for anything. I am merely making points and debating. I hope you can all realize that.
Pertaining to what Jesus would do, he never wrote anything. 2 of the 4 gospels weren't even first hand accounts. They were second generation. Paul himself claims to have talk to Jesus on the road to Damascus, I think that puts him above some of the other records as far as to what Jesus' character were like. To be fair it was never recorded that Jesus talked about murder, theft or any of such. But everone just assumes its understood cuz those are baseline concepts. Jesus was fully inline with the spirit of Judiac law, just not the execution. And we are talking about a group of people who would stone you for looking to feminine.

Killer Joe - I would outlaw divorces, But hey it isn't up to me.

 

[Spiderman]

Isty: Perhaps that's true, but if the guy doesn't agree with you after all that, that's when you drop it or continue in a civil manner, not degnerate to name-calling.

mythosx: He has responded in logical arguments most of the time.

But he sure as hell wouldn't be saying it was ok. He wouldn't be telling people it was ok to be gay.

This is VERY debatable. Seeing how Jesus consorted and talked with the "pariahs" of his day, such as prostitutes and tax collectors, I seriously doubt Jesus would have a problem with gays today. Since he didn't say anything about it from the Gospels or other accounts from people who were his contemporaries, I think this is a serious stretch for you who professes to be religious and seems to me to be more of you (and religious people in general) trying to twist Jesus' beliefs to fit your own, rather the other way around.

 

[EricBess]

Jesus never condoned what those people were or did, Spidey. He just never personally shunned or condemned them.

When they were going to stone the prostitute, he stated, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and basically everyone left. Everyone knows that story, but then he turned to the prostitute and asked, "where are your accuser?" and something along the lines of, "...neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more."

He never condemned, but he often talked about repenting and changing incorrect behavior.

What is debatable here is whether or not homosexuality would be among those things that he would view in this light, not whether or not his consorting with the "pariahs" was tacit acceptance of their behavior.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Spiderman
[B

mythosx: He has responded in logical arguments most of the time.



This is VERY debatable. Seeing how Jesus consorted and talked with the "pariahs" of his day, such as prostitutes and tax collectors, I seriously doubt Jesus would have a problem with gays today. Since he didn't say anything about it from the Gospels or other accounts from people who were his contemporaries, I think this is a serious stretch for you who professes to be religious and seems to me to be more of you (and religious people in general) trying to twist Jesus' beliefs to fit your own, rather the other way around. [/B]

I don't think he has. Although, It might have started out civil, still no evidence or support was shown. Go back to the other thread and look. With out support no arguments are valid. Besides, I could say the same for him. I been using logical arguments and none of mine has even gotten through to him. Don't poison the well, don't use straw men, don't beg the question. Don't use any of those fallacies of argument and I will address each point accordingly.

Jesus did consort with prostitutes and tax collectors. He would have consorted with gays. But you see he didn't condone what they were doing, in fact he changed everyone of them. Mary Magdelane was no longer a prostitute afterwards. His disciples were no longer zealots and tax collectors. And I am sure if anyone professed they were gay, they would not be the same afterwards. One big misconception that the Christianity had to deal with was the idea of Jesus coming breaking the old testament rules. Many different groups in history have said this. The Agnostics, The Marcionists, etc. This is not true. Jesus never broke any of the old rules and never taught so. I am not misconstrueing what he taught. If you say he supported homosexuality or had no opinion you are mistaken. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." He makes it very clear that everything in the old testament rules are in place. But he has come to make up for our short comings. As far as homosexuality is concerned though there are bigger issues on the matters of religion is concerned. I am saddened that people like Chaos Turtle is shunned by his church, friends and or family. Jesus would have hung out with him. But that doesn't mean he would have approved of that lifestyle.

 

[Spiderman]

EricBess: So is the difference between "condoned" and "condemned" is that the former is acceptance/approval and the latter is disapproval? So you're saying that even though he didn't condone or approve of what they were, he didn't condemn or disapprove either?

mythosx: Actually, I disagree with you and agree with him on this whole position, so I think he has made some very good points that you never answered or addressed. But that thread is WAY too long to go back into it now.

I'm not sure how you can determine what the disciples were like since they are not really fleshed out in the Gospels except maybe Simon Peter and his brothers. Simon the Zealot? Don't know too much about him to say whether he remained one or stopped one. Of course the tax collector (Thomas?) wasn't a tax collector while he followed Jesus around. But I still don't see how you can make such a sure-fire statement

But he sure as hell wouldn't be saying it was ok. He wouldn't be telling people it was ok to be gay.

Where's your proof or evidence that he would say or tell people such a thing?

One big misconception that the Christianity had to deal with was the idea of Jesus coming breaking the old testament rules.

So where in the Law was homosexuality forbidden? Was this God's Law or man's Law? And to use a well-known example, what happened to the Old Testament law of taking an eye for eye, but Jesus' revisement to turn the other cheek?

 

[EricBess]

Close, Spidey. I don't think "condemn" and "disapprove" are the same. I think that Jesus likely did disapprove of what the people were doing. However, he still accepted them as people and didn't shun them just because they weren't behaving in the way he did approve of. I think mythosx did a great job of summing it up pretty much the way I understand it.

 

[mythosx]

Ok this thread has turned religious in nature and I am apologizing to all the non religious people who have to suffer through it, as I had the most to do with such a thing.
Please ignore this if it is not applicable.

Spiderman - As for Istanbul, I don't think he did. For example in the old thread all he did was berate my comments. I made the arguement that you can't arbitrarely draw lines in the sand. And then I proceeded to give examples. He took my comment and berated it and used terms like 'justice' and 'self-evident'. Things that are just and self evident to one group may not be so for another. Most of his posts were like this. Thus he was begging the question way too much.

As far as the disciples were concerned, they were fleshed out plenty. Perhaps not in the four gospels but definetly in acts. They were definetly changed men. Historical documents other than the bible also reveal alot into what they were like and what happened to them. I believe according to one historian (I think it was the Jewish traitor Josephus). Eleven of the twelve mentioned in the gospel died grousome deaths in the coloseums fed to lions, torn, apart, crucified, etc. for professing thier faith and not for being zealots and tax collectors. There are records of this just not in the bible.

When I speak of Old Testament laws I do mean God's laws and not the Ceromonial ones. However, You can not just disregard them lightly with the wave of your hand. If you don't take the entire bible seriously you might as well not take it at all. The law of Eye for an Eye is supposed to be a symbolic parallel of the Divine law. The wages of sin is death. Jesus came to die for us yada yada. Thus he paid for that debt. In that way he forgave us. And to turn the other cheek would be the parallel drawn from that. Make no mistake though if you hurt some one you must pay them back. Jesus is only ask you to forgive others when they hurt you. But if you hurt someone else it is your duty to make up for it. He has not changed the rule. The rule still stands. The thing about it all is this religion is not about how much you get away with. But rather how close you can be to perfection. Do not worry about what you can do before you are wrong. Worry about how much you have to do before you can be perfect.

Homosexuality in the bible, does not come up very much. The most cited example is the precidence set by Sodom and Gomorha (sp). Paul also talks about it in the new testament. Yes I know paul isn't exactly Jesus. Regardless, I think he has enough piety to speak for God though. Why do I say this? Well, he was pretty blessed, managed to pull of a few miracles, and basically died a martyr. So until, some one else who did all or better says other wise. I think you are on pretty safe ground to take what he has to say.

Gen 2:24 (This might not mean anything if you want to interpret it differently) For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

1 Cor. 6:12-20 This talks about sexual immorality of all kinds. Sexual Immorality is defined repeatedly as a deviation from just the most basic stuff. Won't list as this is too long.

7:2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. (nothing here about guy on guy action or girl on girl action.)

Paul talks about in several places about people who give up natural relations for unnatural ones and how that isn't cool. He is specifically talking about homosexuality.

 

[Notepad]

Originally posted by mythosx
Ok this thread has turned religious in nature and I am apologizing to all the non religious people who have to suffer through it, as I had the most to do with such a thing.
Please ignore this if it is not applicable.

The issue of religion behind the gay rights issue was touched upon in the other thread. Of course, you brought up the good point that it is really more personal beliefs playing a part in the issue, with religion being one set of personal beliefs.

I think that this thread has turned religious because the best case against gay marriage is one that is contained in a religious viewpoint. And I think that's why there's no end to it all.

Take it on a biological level: So gays can adopt kids or get donors or just face facts that they won't propigate. End of story, as many straight couples aren't able to conceive. Hard to make a case against homosexual marriage biologically.

Institution: Without religion involed, marriage and civil unions are about love and partnerships. Gays can feel that just as much as straight people. Of course, the institution of marriage is deeply cemented in religious beliefs, so it leads into religious arguments eventually.

Body Harm: Well, lesbians don't sodomize each other. As far as sodomy goes, well, there's plenty more people can do to themselves to hurt themselves, without those things being looked down upon.

Behavior: Yeah, it seems totally strange to feel attracted to the same sex. As a straight person this can make very little sense, since the opposite sex is to friggen hot! However, something is compelling gays to ignore biological programming. Either this is a biological difference, or a behavioral difference. We don't know for sure, with conflicting studies, so this case turns into a quagmire fast.

Deviation: All kinds of non-standard couplings happen with people all the time, including straights. If sex was meant only for propigation of the species, then we have offenders all over the place. Thus, this is a difficult case to make against gay marriage.

Civil Rights: This one isn't a case against gay marriage, but in support. It compares homosexuality to gender, religion, nationality, etc. Restriction of rights based on biological, capabilities, or heritage is pretty much veiwed as way wrong (tm). However, this case suffers from the fault of "well, if we let gays do their thing, where do we draw the limit line?" which makes it difficult to make a clear case with.

Thus, it all really falls back on religion and personal beliefs. Do your beliefs cause you to think gays deserve rights, or need to be helped through their problems? Or both?

With no compelling "evidence" either way, this whole thing boils down to what you, as a person, feel is the right thing to do.

Sorta sucks, because now its a matter of national law, and it would be nice to have a clean way to solve this whole issue.