12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal

[Chaos Turtle]

Sodom in a nutshell:

A couple of angels show up at Lot's place, looking for just one righteous guy, since finding him will keep the Lord from wrecking Sodom. (Nevermind why the Lord doesn't already know the exact head count of righteous men in Sodom, being all-knowing and all; just go with it.)

Angels: "Hi, Lot. You're righteous. We're spending the night here."

Lot: "Cool."

A lusty homo crowd has been following the Angels around town, and ends up on Lot's doorstep."

Crowd: "Hey, Lot, howzabout you let us have our nasty homo way with your guests."

Lot: "I don't think so. That's rude."

Crowd: "Aw, come on Lot."

Lot: "No means no. How about you all have a go at my two virgin daughters, instead."

Crowd: "Whatever. You suck. We're gonna break down your door!"

GOD: "SANDSTORM!"

Angels: "We should leave pretty soon. You're the only righteous guy we could find, so as soon as we get you out this whole city is going to Hell in a handbasket."

Lot: "Bummer."

Lot's wife: "Oooh, I can't wait to see the city getting pummeled. Should be a nice view from the hills."

So, was Sodom destroyed because it was filled with raging queers? Or because the village people had no respect for the laws of hospitality?

Who knows? Seems to me though, that since offering his two virgin daughters up to the crowd instead of his guests, who he was by law responsible for protecting, does not make him any less righteous, that it was not sexual iniquity that got Sodom wrecked.

(Later on in the story, with Lot's wife no more than a pillar of salt in the hills, his two daughters, sad that they were still unmarried virgins, devise a plan to get their Dad drunk over the course of two nights and take advantage of him. Their timing is excellent, as they both become pregnant and give birth to Moab and Benammi, who get to be founders of two great tribes, despite their increased risk of autosomal recessive diseases.)

 

[mythosx]

Haha...good point. I'd have to agree with you that the whole story is a bit messed up. I don't even know how to tackle the part about the incest. I would venture to say that they were in the wrong. I don't think Lot's daughter's were unmarried though. I'll go back and look, but I vaguely remember something about their husbands not wanting to go along. It was a twisted twisted story.

 

[Spiderman]

Originally by EricBess
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.

Call me the Doubting Thomas, but "likely disapproving" is still drawing a conclusion without hard evidence that Jesus truly stated such (or could be drawn, given his tendency to speak around subjects anyway).

mythosx: I think Isty started out fine and when you seemingly did not respond to his arguments, he got exasperated and started to do the example you mentioned.

I am curious for my own sake about the fleshing out of the disciples out of the New Testament and other sources. Do you have any links or additional info that would save me time from me doing a Google search?

SeFRo and Chaos Turtle do a great job saying what else I had to say.

 

[EricBess]

Spidey...I think if you go back and read my first post in this thread, you will see that I never claimed to have any "hard evidence"...

However, I think that they fact that he often commented, "...go and sin no more..." has to be valid for something.

 

[Oversoul]

Originally posted by 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?

England had already broken away from the RCC by 1611 (well, it was commissioned earlier than that, to be sure, but I don't know exactly how much earlier, so I'll just go with the the year it was finalized). King Henry VIII was the one who wanted the divorce and he was rather dead by the time the 1611 version or "King James" version of the bible was transcribed. I am not positive about the succession here, so I'd appreciate it if someone would back me up or correct me, but it went something like this...

Henry VIII dies. Jane Grey gets the throne somehow because her relative of some sort isn't there. But after being queen for about nine days, Mary (don't remember number, but she's the one who was called "Bloody Mary" for all the people she killed) comes back and Jane Grey has to get her head chopped off. Bloody Mary earns her "bloody" title by killing lots of people, which had something to do with the Protestant/Catholic conflict in England and her retaining the throne (she was Catholic). After a while (not sure how long) she dies and her younger sister (I think) Elizabeth I becomes queen and an influential one too. I think she died after being queen for like 40-something years. THEN James I (I think) becomes king and he is the one who orders the new translation of the bible...

Wow, there are a lot of holes in that. I'm just not a historian...

 

[mythosx]

No sir, I believe you are correct or at least adequate. Henry was the one who wanted the divorce I believe, and he is the one who wanted to split from the church. My comment was a bit off and a tad misleading.

Spiderman - I can't really respond to opinions. If he put up some facts or numbers I could counter, however, he likes to state opinions which is fine and untouchable.

It's ok to doubt. Jesus did not ever speak around subjects. He spoke very directly but just in a deeper manner than 'you suck' or 'that's wrong'. He walked around saying he was God directly just in a deeper fashion than "I'm God." instead he chose the phrase, "I AM." and "son of man". It is true that Jesus never had to deal with the subject of sexual immorality within the four gospels. But like I said he never dealt with the easy issues either. For example I don't think anyone ever came up to him to ask if it was ok to steal or kill. We aren't debating if any of those other simple things are up for use.

Sefro basically rounded up all the points up earlier. With out evidence about the nature of homosexuality then we can't make a clean decision on this. Regardless of what Istanbul says, we can and do pass laws against behaviors and habits. If this is an unchangeble nature of a being then we would have to concede that it is ok.

The bottom line is this. If you don't have a personal religion or epistomology(I think thats the term for the big view on the universe) It is very hard to debate with and against. First off you would just arbitrarely put up beliefs without backing them up and you would adamantly believe then. Then you wouldn't be able to argue against anything because you don't even know where you stand.

 

[Spiderman]

EricBess: I know. But what I'm saying is that you and mythosx seem sure that Jesus would have disapproved such behavior which I think is a hard stretch to make since there aren't any examples to base that off of. Sure he might have disapproved of other behavior and if we were talking the merits of prostitution and pornography, we could be more sure of Jesus' stance on those issues. But gay issues? I think you're trying to draw a doubtful conclusion based on evidence you don't have.

mythosx: I agree with your conclusions there.

Even though I think Isty doesn't believe in the religious base of the gay issue, what I think he was trying to do was try to debate you on those grounds since that's the only place you seemed to be coming from - you didn't seem to be able to take the issue outside of religious background. But when he tried to point out any inconsistencies even in the biblical background, you didn't seem to respond to those either. At least that's how I remember it turned out.

 

[EricBess]

Spidey, fair enough. I see what you are saying and you are correct. I do strongly believe Jesus would have disapproved of such behavior based on my background and understanding, as well as some biblical accounts that are vague at best.

But I've also tried to make sure that I prefaced everything with the fact that I do not have any strict evidence that Jesus wouldn't have approved of homosexuality. Most of the examples and such that I have stated only speak of prostitution or do not state specific offences. I do believe that certain things are implied, but can certainly be interpreted differently.

 

[Spiderman]

I agree and think you do a pretty good job with your caveats and was ready to agree with you when you said

What is debatable here is whether or not homosexuality would be among those things that he would view in this light

which I agree is the base question. It's just when you said

I think mythosx did a great job of summing it up pretty much the way I understand it.

was when I needed to clear that up

 

[mythosx]

I think I need to clear up some confusions on my part. As far as biblical inconcistancies go. Unless, you study the bible consistantly, It is very hard to find any inconsistancies. I don't address all objections on these matters because it would take too long to explain. It would be like some one who never took physics calling the teacher wrong when they explain the theory of relativaty. His objections sometiems were too far off base and I don't really feel like giving bible school lectures.

Wether Isty knows this or not. But his arguments stem from his religious base. A religion is defined as any beliefs that affect a persons decision. Aethism is a religion, its just not organized. And not realizing as such, he tries to poison the well by saying no religious arguements are allowed. That I just ignore cuz it is just a basic falacy. I generated an argument using the belief system of a natural aethiest. His response was that is silly. Not in so many words but that was it.

 

[Istanbul]

On the contrary.
My arguments stem from the idea that no religious arguments...
Read that again, NO RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS...
...should influence governmental policy-making.
A person should not be denied their rights based on your religious beliefs, my religious beliefs, or anyone else's religious beliefs.
I feel that saying, "My religion, the way that I choose to believe in a deity, says this...so YOU, who do NOT believe this way, should not have these rights" is not only an affront to decency, but an affront to the very god you worship. They don't say "God is a certain variety of love between a particular combination of people". They say "God is Love". Let's PROVE it.
And I'm not an atheist, so that argument falls too.

 

[EricBess]

Isty, I would need to disagree with you here. I don't think you quite understood what mythosx was saying and I think it is a common issue.

Let me give an example. When I was still living at home, I used to like to just sit and work on something with no radio on. My brother would come in and turn on the radio, selecting the station that he liked. I would tell him, "I was listening to that." And of course, his response would be that I wasn't listening and he should set his station and he would typically win that argument.

Same thing here. "not believing" in something is typically not viewed as a religious viewpoint so it is easy for someone to say that they are not forcing a religion on someone when they pass legislation to absolutely prohibit prayer in school, for example.

But if a group of students don't mind and want to have prayer in school, why shouldn't they be allowed to.

Note that these are just examples. The point I believe mythosx was making was that any opinion on anything of a religion nature is effectively a religious opinion. The only disagreement I see is whether or not you believe sexuality to be a religious issue.

Of course, it gets a bit complicated because if you don't see it as such, someone who does could argue that not seeing it as such is in itself a "religious decision" because not awknowledging the grass is green doesn't mean it isn't.

Where I disagree is you Isty, is in your comment that no religious arguments should influence governmental policy making. I do believe in separation of church and state, but is a different issue. If a nation elects a known-religious individual to a position of authority in government, then I would argue that they do so knowing that the person is going to govern with a specific religious perspective.

That's why we hold elections in the first place is so that the "majority" (however it is legally defined for this purpose) may select the type of government influence they choose. By allowing a minority to persecute an elected official because they are "allowing their religious background" to affect their policy, we are flying in the face of what we have been trying to accomplish in the first place.

Just to clarify, there would be certain things that a government official could try to do from a religious standpoint that would be inappropriate. For example, I don't believe in banning prayer in schools, but I also don't believe in forcing someone to participate if you allow it.

But there are checks and balances in the system and, quite frankly, one of the reasons we should be electing certain individuals over others is because we believe they have the ability to differenciate where to appropriately draw the line.

 

[Astranbrulth]

Ouch! A religious argument!

I'm always up for a fight, but this is real dangerous territory...

While I think I'd choke if I were to kiss another guy, I support the right of those who choose to do so to, um, do so. That means gay marriage has to be OK too.

The only thorny implications that come in are: what happens when all manner of people 'get married', so to speak, to take advantage of LEGAL benefits offered by married status? Even straights who say they are gay?

What will be the effect of a massive 'marriage' campaign amongst business people etc. Will there even be such a shift in status?

Food for thought.

--Astranbrulth--

 

[Spiderman]

Why would straights have to say they're gay to be married? They could just get married without doing so...

 

[EricBess]

I think he means straight roommates who say they are gay to get the benefits of being married.

Astranbrulth - If you were referring to my post, I don't believe I was making a religious argument so much as I was saying that religion is going to play a part in everything that happens regardless of whether you awknowledge that decisions were religious or not. So, my point was that elected officials shouldn't change who they are just to avoid "conflicts of church and state".

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Istanbul
On the contrary.
My arguments stem from the idea that no religious arguments...
Read that again, NO RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS...
...should influence governmental policy-making.
A person should not be denied their rights based on your religious beliefs, my religious beliefs, or anyone else's religious beliefs.
I feel that saying, "My religion, the way that I choose to believe in a deity, says this...so YOU, who do NOT believe this way, should not have these rights" is not only an affront to decency, but an affront to the very god you worship. They don't say "God is a certain variety of love between a particular combination of people". They say "God is Love". Let's PROVE it.
And I'm not an atheist, so that argument falls too.

Ok well my mistake about your religious affiliation. So you are religious. Regardless, there is no such thing as a non-religious person. Aethism by the definition of the supreme court of the U.S. is a religion. If you believe in nothing, if you vote like you believed in nothing then you are voting with an aethistic religious concience. If I am forced to make decisions and abide by laws based on Aethistic principles then that would be the government forcing aethism on me, which according to you is wrong. So what does that mean? It means we are garuanteed the freedom to vote the way we want based upon our own individual views of the world, this of course would include things such as education, wealth and religion. You can not not use religion to decide anything except matters of personal taste. Religion affects the very fiber of what people are.

Your point about denying anyone anything is a bit misleading. I am not singling out people or a group of people. My position is for all people not to have the option for single sex marriages. Again no one is being denied anything that another person has access to.

I also made an arguement earlier as a social history arguement not based on religion that you did not pause to consider but immeadately disregarded. Overly decadent societies don't last. In most of those, Homosexuality usually is apparent, i.e. the Greeks. I don't know if this is an indicator of the decline of society, a cause of decay or not corolated. But it does seem to appear alot.

The line where you said that A person should not be denied rights based on any beliefs of anyone, is contrary to what you said earlier. This in itself is a religious statement. This is what you believe in. And it affects your judgement. And falls under the supreme court definition of what belongs under the header as religious beliefs. Thus it would contradict your first point of no religious arguments. Let me ask you a simple question. Why is it wrong to bring in religious arguements? Just because we don't allow certain behaviors in society doesn't mean we are oppressing anyone. I will once again use the illustration of murder. You disregarded this last time with out any firm arguments. I sat next to a satanist in highschool art class. It was a very interesting expeirence. In thier ten commandments, they have one that says, You should kill anyone who makes you angry or gets in your way. Now by passing laws that you and I BELIEVE to be helpful to society, we are trampling on thier RIGHTS to observe thier faith. Obviously we are going to say hey, its cool to kill people. But you are doing the exact thing that you said was wrong to do. Deny the rights of anyone based upon any beliefs.

 

[Spiderman]

EricBess: I still don't get it. Why would they try to pass themselves off as gay to gain the benefits of being married when gays are currently fighting themselves to gain the same benefits of being married? Why wouldn't they just pass themselves off as a straight, married couple where the benefits already exist?

mythosx:

Aethism by the definition of the supreme court of the U.S. is a religion.

Is this the authority of the definition you're going by, or did you just happen to name this particular one out of several others?

 

[TomB]

Originally posted by Spiderman
EricBess: I still don't get it. Why would they try to pass themselves off as gay to gain the benefits of being married when gays are currently fighting themselves to gain the same benefits of being married? Why wouldn't they just pass themselves off as a straight, married couple where the benefits already exist?

Maybe because they're same sex roomates/friends who'd like to take advantage of the gay marriage opportunity should it arise.

I doubt it would happen very often, but I'm fairly certain that's what EB meant...

 

[Spiderman]

Ah, roommates. Now I get it.... don't know why I missed it before in EricBess's explanation...

 

[Astranbrulth]

Or not even necessarily roomates.

Imagine businesspeople getting 'married' for the duration of a deal to take advantage of favourable tax options for married couples, and 'divorcing' as soon as the deal is finished.

Those are the sort of implications same sex marriage might have.

Of course, as I write this, I realise that there hasn't been this sort of exploitation of the laws of marriage by straight, opposite sex businesspeople ... so maybe I'm off the tracks on this one.

--Astranbrulth--