Sort of like incest in nature? Or like eating your young? Or like being born with two heads?

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

I've given you a (limited) concession on incest, why keep bringing up stupid strawmen when you could simply fight the battle on, y'know, logical terms?

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

Here is my opinion on the issue of Gay marriage:

We are a country of free thought and free religion, or at least that is the principles of our country. The idea of this country is that we are all FREE, until the point in which we cause harm each other or ourselves. This is why people fought for the women's right to vote, the freedom of african americans, and then the equal treatment of african Americans etc.

SO, the question here is: allowing two men or women to marry, does this harm others or cause people to harm themselves?

Harming themselves:
I am going to assume that the general thought is that gay marriage is harming the two parties because they are committing themselves to a sin legally, in support by the country. However, this sin is not a law, and therefor the country has no right in saying that the act of homosexuality can be stopped, such as gambling. Also, since this is not a legal act, there is no authority in saying that a marriage would be doing these two harm.

Harming others:
I am going to assume (again) that the general thought is a moral issue. Allowing gay marriage devalues other marriages that our between a man and a woman. It also showcases that homosexuality is acceptable to impressionable youth. As of right now, homosexuals can live together, and be 'out' in the public as much as heterosexuals couples, and there right to do so is protected by anti-discrimination laws. Their partnerships are still showcased, and therefor already make the similar impression to youth that a marriage would make. In the same regards to marriage, through the same logic, a homosexual couple devalues relationships, as a it would if they were married. So, the devaluing is already present, allowing marriage does not progress the devaluing, if you see it as devaluing.

SPIRITUALLY SPEAKING: Outlawing gay marriage only outlaws the country or states recognition of gay marriage. Gay marriage happen in the ceremony sense through spiritual terms. There are Protestant sect that recognize gay couples, and even with sects that do not, my old baptist preacher conducted a gay ceremony. Even if they weren't recognized by the state, they still had the spiritual ceremony (now whether God accepts the union is an unnecessary debate as it is a matter of opinion, but the ceremony did happen in a house of worship by a practicing preacher)

CONSTITUTIONAL SPEAKING: anti-gay marriage is essentially saying that these people do not have the right to do what everyone else is doing. AND there right is NOT denied because they committed a crime (i.e. did anything wrong in the eyes of the country as a legal system). So, I full heartedly believe that gays have a right to be married. I do not necessarily agree with homosexuality, or the moral standards, but I think it is their right to do so as much it is a heterosexuals for the reason that they are committing NO crime.

WHAT IS NATURAL: I think love is natural. I have seen people fight their homosexuality, and they have become very depressed (I have also seen heterosexuals think they are homosexual, but then realize they are not). I do not think life should be lived where you are fighting or denying something in your heart, because it will be a sad or bitter life. The best thing and most natural thing is our feelings, and I just think that if a man truly loves another man then that IS natural. This part I understand is COMPLETELY opinion, and is a weak part of my statement, it is really just a matter of what I feel is right, so do not jump on my case for this part of my statement.

Did you even read what he wrote? Humans eating their young is "certainly not" natural.

.......or do you disagree with that? Pretty sure he doesn't need to explain that concept.

Since "it certainly is not" is tied together with an entire post and doesn't stand on its own.

He was twisting logic, which EVERYONE seems to do in this thread as opposed to talk straight about the topic. As far as his twisted logic goes, I see his point, but I would never make that point...

How was that twisting logic? That was completely straight-forward logic as you are going to get in this thread.

You're not really following the argument well.

Rudey and I were discussing the ethical basis for laws earlier in the conversation, and his comparison with eating your mate was a callback to that. He conflated two wholly different arguments - as did you - which is a legitimate logical fallacy.

Something can be "natural" and wrong - eating your mate is clearly wrong under any ethical standard, so we don't have to rely on a narrow, Christian standard (as we shouldn't, I feel, for lawmaking - apparently the Court agrees). My argument, in its entirety, is that laws banning gay marriage are generally based on religious views, and thus shouldn't hold up to judicial review.

Arguing against gay marriage because it is "unnatural" is demonstrably false - you can argue it is wrong for a litany of other (primarily religious) reasons, but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.

I'm totally following the argument. Someone has yet to give a definitive reason as to why being gay is natural.

Because it is occurring in nature. There are people who are gay. These people were not altered by some man made technological method to make them gay, therefore, they are naturally gay.

Not to start another tangent / flame war, but there are people who believe that people choose to be gay.

Well, they are misinformed and should talk to some of the gay people and find out.

Don't think that's gonna help. LOL!

Again, things that are natural. So is being born deaf. So is being born with 3 eyes instead of 2.

HOLY SHIT, WE AGREE. yeah, i'm still not buying the fact that someone was born like that.

shut up, read the conversation, then join in.

Except that I believe people are born gay (but probably not for the reasons most people do).

yeah obviously, i was little intoxicated when i posted that.

Did you choose to be straight? Was there a point during puberty where you made the active choice to choose men over woman?

Gay people do not choose to be gay. Several homosexuals battle with their homosexuality often leading to depression and turbulent youths, before they accept it. I am not saying they are born with it either. The nature vs. nurture argument is still out there that either people are born gay or developments in their childhood shape them to be gay. Either way, it is not an active choice by the individual. The only choice is whether a homosexual conducts homosexual activity, or merely pretend to be heterosexual, or conduct himself in a life of celibacy.

So:

For me it was an innate 'decision' - I just always liked boys. ;)

Let me see if I can explain - the concept stems from the fact that God would not create a sinner on purpose, one from birth. The thought is that we are all born being good and righteous in the eyes of God, free from sin. During life, God gives us the chance to decide how we want to live. Whether we want to be good or bad, right or wrong. Since for some, homosexuality is a sin, then people can not be born gay. It is something they decided to do during their lives.

Unbelievable.

Not really.

Who are these "some", these "some" people who are playing God and deciding what's a sin and what is not, and whether people are born gay or not? It sounds blasphemous and unscientific.

Well, Catholics believe that you born with sin, inherited from Adam and Eve, which is why they baptize you when you are an infant. The only human ever born without sin was Jesus.

Do you think you could make yourself like girls instead of boys? If you always inherently liked boys then that follows that you didn't have a choice.

Really.

That's one of the most convoluted arguments I've ever heard.

For instance, some religions believe in the concept of original sin, meaning, as I understand it, that everyone is born a sinner -- not saintlike. Where does that leave them in this decision making process. Are they more likely to be gay because they're already sinners? Does it make the "choice" harder? Easier?

It seems to me that the problem in arguing anything on the basis of religious beliefs is that religions themselves are inconsistant -- not only between themselves and other religions, but often within their denominations.

That is to say nothing of individual beliefs. Not everyone takes everything their religion says as gospel (to coin a phrase -- pun intended).

So, who decides whether my religion is wrong if it doesn't agree with yours?

I'm pretty well convinced that there is no decision in whether someone is gay or not. If you want to convince me I'm wrong, quoting scriptures isn't the way to do it.

As someone noted above, the Bible was not written by God, but is a mortal intrepetation. Until God himself (or herself) tells me something in person, I'll reserve the right to be skeptical on some things.

ETA that I was writing while AGDee was posting above.

Ever been in the 'Bible belt' deep South? These people tend to be protestants who feel they are following the Word of God, not that they are playing God. The way they see it, people are not born bad, it is just their circumstances, life choices that make them that way. Once people realize that they are living a life against the will of God then they need to repent. Once you repent, then you are no longer to commit that particular sin, whether it was stealing, beating some one up, or homosexuality.

Protestants don't believe this. We believe, for the most part, that as a young child, it is your parents responsibility to teach you about church and Jesus Christ. After going to Sunday school, church, and vacation Bible school that around the age 10 - 13, the kid would make the decision to commit his / her life to Christ, and thus decide to get baptized.


Me personally? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I love the boys. I love being the only girl in a relationship. Not to get too personal, but there are some things only a boy can provide me. ;)

It's nice that they see it that way.

But "they" may or may not be right, and just because they believe they are doesn't make it so. They're not gods themselves, just simple humans like the rest of us. A choice or accident of where they live makes no difference at all in whether they see things correctly.

Consider this which always bothered me during my early upbringing in a mondo conservative, "Hell, fire and brimstone" Church of Christ In Christian Union. If God is all knowing, all loving, all forgiving -- how can He/She condem someone to eternal damnation in Hell? Why would we have to be "tested?" Especially, if we are born without sin? Why would He/She even offer the option?

I'm an ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church and believe in God, but still have a lot of questions.

I pose a question to everyone here who seems to make choices non religiously, how do you define your morals?

This is very relevant to the subject if you'll just answer.

I don't see what the controversy is. Many people believe that God creates people and they choose to act, either according to their urges or in spite of them. I actually think this argument is pretty legitimate.

I think my morals are just fine, thanks.

But I could be wrong. I'm not a god, either.

Sorry for the double post.

Shiner, believe me I understand what you're saying, but the fact that it's people who believe that gives me a problem.

People are not perfect.

What a person believes does not make it so.

My personal morals are based on my own religious belief system. Where we differ is in whether we think that we should force others to live by our religious beliefs. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

Morality and legality are not synonymous. There are a lot of things that I believe to be amoral but are legal. If we are going to base our laws on religious beliefs, then whose do we follow? If we pick one religion, then we are in violation of our Constitution. If we combine all of them, well, they will conflict. Do you want us to follow Catholic law and have birth control be illegal? Do you want us to follow the original Mormon law and have polygamy be legal? Who do we follow? Yours? Because you want us to? What if we force you to live by our religious beliefs? Would that be ok with you? Some could argue that since premarital sex is immoral, we are forcing them to live immorally by not allowing them to marry. Heterosexuals have the option of not having sex outside of marriage, but few exercise that option. Most choose to sin.

I happen to think that our government should only intervene to ban things that harm or infringe on others' civil rights. They have already way overstepped their bounds on several matters.

How morally I (or anybody else) choose to live is between me and Him (or them and their Higher Power).

Your entire argument seems to be based on "Well I don't like it". Nobody asked you to like it. Nobody asked you to marry someone of your own gender. It will not affect your life in any way if homosexuals choose to commit to lifelong partners in a legal (or religious, if their religion allows it) ceremony.

Of course it doesn't, so what?

Protestants do believe that people are born with sin. Most Protestants don't practice infant baptism, however. The perception of western Christians (Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants) was drastically impacted by various people, ideologies and events including Augustine, Aquinas and the Reformation all of which were influenced by Roman law. Before 400 AD, this was not the case. The early church hadn't yet been introduced to the concept of original sin, the belief shared by Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants that mankind inherited the sinful nature and subsequent guilt of Adam and Eve. Prior to that time, sin was viewed as a disruption in our relationship with God. In essence, humans are born with predispositions toward things that would not be natural if we had walked freely with God. These predispositions form who we are (or rather who we think we are), right or wrong.

With that said, I absolutely believe that people are "born" with predispositions toward a great number of things - some of which our society frowns upon, some of which our society embraces - but none of which are natural in the supreme order of life. People are born with a predisposition to be fat, gay, overachievers, cynics...all sorts of things. Walking with God in a world like ours is devastating to the identities we have developed.

Still, as Christians (well, those of us who are), we should want to preserve the rights of individuals to live as they believe they should. It is God's work, not ours, that draws mankind to Him. As long as people are not committing acts that are universally rejected (murder, rape, etc.), the best way Christians can show compassion to others is to step aside and let God work.

In the case of legalizing gay marriage, what good comes from setting up camp on either side of the issue and tossing grenades at each other?

Precious, of course their (our) response to your assertion is that nobody is restricting the right of gay people to live as they want. We're simply not including them in something they've never fit the definition of.

Never? Or never in this country where the founding fathers were Christians-when-convenient?

ETA: I'm speaking to the Christian resistance, not to non-Christians. So, my question - to Christians - is, in the case of legalizing gay marriage, what good comes from setting up camp on either side of the issue and tossing grenades at each other?

What is that supposed to mean?