Homosexuality

[BoringSupreez]

I'm not risking it. We've been getting in to questionable subject matter ever since we touched upon religion... now we're going too far, and I beleive it should be called off, with everybody keeping their current stance, and not to be brought up again. We have no need to.

If you don't want to discuss contentious subject matter, it might be best not to base your argument upon it.

I never started an argument. I stated my opinion, then others started an argument on the subject. I never even wanted to say it, and wouldn't have, if I had not been encouraged too.

This discussion has been civil so far, really. A real Racketboy argument is way, way worse than this.

[DinnerX]

This is where you begin to get into "argument from evil" territory. The question is "why does God allow evil to happen?" and the answer to that question leads to debates of the existence of free will versus the omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence of God.

"God moves in mysterious ways" is terribly cliche but you have to allow for the paradox in order to have this conversation without it turning into a conversation about the existence of God. You have to assume that if there is a God, we cannot understand Him, Christians and non-Christians alike.

Yup. Why did God allow sin? To give people free will. Why did he give people free will? So they could praise him by their own will. Is God benevolent? Yes. Is he omnipotent? Yes. Then why didn't he create a world in which people were free but not able to sin?

I certainly don't have a logical answer now and I may never.

If the basic conceit of every argument against homosexuality is that "it's a sin", then the only thing I'm interested in knowing is: Why is it a sin?

It's a sin if God says it is. Whether he actually says so or not is debated. So is if he/it actually exists, as well as how sin (if it exists) should be handled by the government.

And I don't quite understand the argument stating that gay people should not get married because being gay is a sin. Gay people don't sin any more or less than anyone else so why should they not have the same rights everyone else?

The issue is that getting married requires government approval. How can I be expected to do nothing while the government approves of something I think is bad? We're not talking, as I see it, about the government simply sitting by and allowing people to do their own thing.

"Homosexuals should be denied the same rights as their fellow man"

A same-sex union is only a right if one views joining with someone of the same-sex as just as valid (i.e. it isn't wrong) as joining with someone of the opposite sex. If you don't believe that a same-sex union can be a legitimate marriage, then you don't believe you are abridging anyone's rights.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to prove anything in this thread, nor do I claim to represent Christians as a whole. I simply attempt to explain my beliefs, perspective, and decisions. I don't think the Bible is provable, which is part of why I don't crackdown on people with other perspectives. On another note, extreme, well-meaning, "Christian" groups concern me. The last thing I want is another stain on the record of people acting in God's name.

[Michi]

what exactly makes those teachings moral, right and justifiable? Is it the simple fact that God is more powerful than we are? Does it really just come down to a case of might makes right? What makes God any different than a traditional monarch or dictator, but without a figurehead for the public to turn on?

This is where you begin to get into "argument from evil" territory. The question is "why does God allow evil to happen?" and the answer to that question leads to debates of the existence of free will versus the omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence of God.

"God moves in mysterious ways" is terribly cliche but you have to allow for the paradox in order to have this conversation without it turning into a conversation about the existence of God. You have to assume that if there is a God, we cannot understand Him, Christians and non-Christians alike.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

So all the mono-theistic religions are heavy on the 'make babies' slant. An adversarial view of homosexuality is a natural result.

I really need to start posting what I'm thinking, I was going to mention something to this affect earlier. The fact that homosexuals will not/do not procreate, pretty much renders them useless and is probably a deep under-lying reason for all the hatred for them.

I think this train of thought does touch on a primary reason why it's considered a sin/amoral/unnatural in the first place.

I think once humanity started settling down and farming, communities arose to protect the farmland, the new main source of food. Of course, in order to protect the land you need more bodies, so people started having more children and larger families. Those who didn't have families were probably looked upon as not doing enough to help their communities. They weren't living up to their community/familial duties, as it were, by producing offspring that would ultimately help to protect and produce for the community down the line.

If none of that made any sense I'm sorry, but it's 1am here and I'm tired.

[elmagicochrisg]

For me there's no such thing as gay or straight people. Only good and bad people...

[sabrage]

"Homosexuals should be denied the same rights as their fellow man"

A same-sex union is only a right if one views joining with someone of the same-sex as just as valid (i.e. it isn't wrong) as joining with someone of the opposite sex. If you don't believe that a same-sex union can be a legitimate marriage, then you don't believe you are abridging anyone's rights.

For the sake of avoiding re-tread:

Here's the thing that really gets me about opposition to gay marriage legislation. It confuses the religious state of marriage with the legal state of marriage. The religious state of marriage is the contract between the couple and their deity(s). The legal state of marriage confers certain benefits that are completely independent of the religious aspect. It gives things like changes to your tax filing, grants legal rights such as medical visitation, and allows for trivial inheritance at death, among other things. One can be legally married without having gone through any sort of religious ceremony. One can be legally married while violating every tenant of one's religious obligations of marriage. So I don't understand why the legal definition of marriage should be opposed due to the religious notions of marriage.

[MrPopo]

This discussion has been civil so far, really. A real Racketboy argument is way, way worse than this.

And some of you thought it was a bad thing we got rid of Inazuma.

[vgrageaholic]

I don't agree with homosexuality, but I would never interfere with someone's God-given right to choose it. God gives us the freedom to choose how we live - but he has laid out how he wants us to live, for our own blessing and that of others, both now and eternally. And as I believe all scripture is 'God-breathed' that means the very unmistakable verses by Paul in which he condemns homosexuality must be taken seriously.

[NesimLE]

I'd like to pose a question. Why does the government provide benefits to those who get married in the first place?

[harper]

I'd like to pose a question. Why does the government provide benefits to those who get married in the first place?

Because they knew that somewhere along the line it would be the perfect way to spite homosexuals.

[Flake]

I'd like to pose a question. Why does the government provide benefits to those who get married in the first place?

If you look at what the world was like back in the days when social security benefits were created, you'll get your answer. There were a lot more ways for male Americans to meet their untimely demise back then and it was a way to provide (at least a little) for their widows.

Now it's kind of an anachronism. To be honest, instead of seeing those benefits extended to same sex couples, I kind of expect them to be taken away from everyone. The current social security system is just not sustainable. That's a different thread, though.