question about homosexuality

[Orangeslice13]

Its not name calling if you earn the name. The guy is an idiot.

Name calling is weak. TRUT is strong enough not to do it. I do understand sometimes people can get to you though.

 

[Danl]

Name calling is weak. TRUT is strong enough not to do it. I do understand sometimes people can get to you though.

Nobody got to me.

Here's the idiotic direct quote:

"There is not one single law which applies only to heteros. All laws which apply to heteros, apply to everyone, regardless of sexuality."

Who, other than an idiot, makes such an idiotic statement?

 

[Orangeslice13]

I Shall make another attempt at explaining my view of life.

Interesting post. You concede that a person has genetic predispositions to certain behaviors. You are right about alcoholism having a genetic base. However, you have two claims that are worth looking at more closely given the previous statement.

You say that a person has the ability to control those genetic predispositions. Being that we believe that behavior is split 50/50 based on genetics and environment, I generally agree with such a statement. The problem that arises both ethically and legally (in our country) is that the behavior homosexuals are genetically predisposed is one which causes no harm to any other individual. In fact, it brings great satisfaction and joy to their lives. It is quite literally natural to them. Epicureanism, one of the most basic moral philosophies, would say that there is nothing wrong with pursuing an action or lifestyle that makes one happy at no expense of another. Your view is basically at odds with the notion that happiness or pleasure is not intrinsically good.

So far we're good.

Your retort to this would be as you stated above about homosexuality being sinful in the eyes of God from your interpretation of the Bible.

And we're off track.
I never said Homosexuality is sinful. I was very careful not to. I honestly believe it is up to each individual to determine what is sin in their life. Again, Drinking for me is sin for others it is not. another example for my is pick up Basketball. I can't play basketball without getting in a fight. Basketball is sinful for me but not for 99% of everyone else.
On the day of judgement I will be before God all by myself to answer for my life. you will not be there to help me therefore I'm worried about my judgement and will let others worry about theirs.

I know you believe in creationism, however, do you believe that every individual is created by God or with God's love? (Yes) Or is more like God created man and let evolution to take over? If it is the former, you have a theological problem on your hands. How could God possibly create a person who has inherent sin in every cell of their body? Further, how could God consider this true sin? He created it. It also calls into question his true benevolence and the problem of evil. Maybe it is just an elaborate test of faith?

I believe God is all the big words TRUT likes to use. I believe God is in control. I believe God allowed sin and corruption into this world. And I believe it is a gift. With out sin there is no free will. With out free will there is no choice to serve God. and lets face it the Heaven that God is offering would be Hell for many people.

Why did God allow sin into the world? that's a whole other thread.






So in conclusion, I think it's a choice. (But honestly who really cares what I think)

 

[Orangeslice13]

Nobody got to me.

Here's the idiotic direct quote:

"There is not one single law which applies only to heteros. All laws which apply to heteros, apply to everyone, regardless of sexuality."

Who, other than an idiot, makes such an idiotic statement?

I was referring to TRUT's name calling.
The use of "You're an idiot" takes away for your (not you specifically) credibility.
When people post stupid things I prefer to give them a WTF or just quit responding to them.

 

[therealUT]

I was referring to TRUT's name calling.
The use of "You're an idiot" takes away for your (not you specifically) credibility.
When people post stupid things I prefer to give them a WTF or just quit responding to them.

My credibility has been shot for quite some time. :hi:

 

[Orangeslice13]

My credibility has been shot for quite some time. :hi:

Not true. While we often disagree I find your post to be well thought out and consistent.

 

[therealUT]

Not true. While we often disagree I find your post to be well thought out and consistent.

Oh Lord, Slice, you are lost and you do not even know it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Oh Lord, Slice, you are lost and you do not even know it.

Well I am a sinner. ;+)

 

[PKT_VOL]

And we're off track.
I never said Homosexuality is sinful. I was very careful not to. I honestly believe it is up to each individual to determine what is sin in their life. Again, Drinking for me is sin for others it is not. another example for my is pick up Basketball. I can't play basketball without getting in a fight. Basketball is sinful for me but not for 99% of everyone else.
On the day of judgement I will be before God all by myself to answer for my life. you will not be there to help me therefore I'm worried about my judgement and will let others worry about theirs.

Ok. So basically you say that you don't know what is sinful and therefore won't judge. I agree with you there.

I believe God is all the big words TRUT likes to use. I believe God is in control. I believe God allowed sin and corruption into this world. And I believe it is a gift. With out sin there is no free will. With out free will there is no choice to serve God. and lets face it the Heaven that God is offering would be Hell for many people.

Why did God allow sin into the world? that's a whole other thread.

I don't agree with this in the way that it is written. I generally don't like the word "sin" because it is in the eye of the beholder (it's relative not absolute).

I don't see free will or lack there of having anything to do with sin. Although I generally agree with Leibniz that if there was a creative God, he created the universe from all possible combinations which explains the problem of evil (being that there must be a certain amount of evil or badness for life to appreciate the good).

 

[therealUT]

I generally don't like the word "sin" because it is in the eye of the beholder (it's relative not absolute).

I don't see free will or lack there of having anything to do with sin. Although I generally agree with Leibniz that if there was a creative God, he created the universe from all possible combinations which explains the problem of evil (being that there must be a certain amount of evil or badness for life to appreciate the good).

Granted that you see sin as relative; however, if you conditionally accept sin, then you have to accept that free will is a necessary component, yes? If we were determined, then sin would certainly not exist (it would be an absurd concept).

I never took you for a Leibniz-ian. I am not sure that I buy into his "best of all possible worlds" angle. Of course, I have yet to read any Leibniz; I got all the Leibniz I could handle from Voltaire. I just think such an approach defeats too many of the aspects of the God that Leibniz wants to hold on to (of course, this is a second-hand critique, since I have yet to read his actual works).

Ultimately, I do not see how offenses against God are possible; therefore, I have trouble with the concept of "sin" as opposed to "morally unjustifiable" actions (even then, though, I think it possible that morality could be a construct). If God is omnipotent, then one cannot offend God; however, one can certainly harm another individual.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Granted that you see sin as relative; however, if you conditionally accept sin, then you have to accept that free will is a necessary component, yes? If we were determined, then sin would certainly not exist (it would be an absurd concept).

Not necessarily. There are a number of different ways of interpreting free will. I don't see how sin and free will must be tangled. I think they can be mutually exclusive. Again, there are many different angles one can attack free will, but if one was to simply define free will as the ability to freely choice between two options, I don't see how sin has to play a role; even in moral decisions.

I never took you for a Leibniz-ian. I am not sure that I buy into his "best of all possible worlds" angle. Of course, I have yet to read any Leibniz; I got all the Leibniz I could handle from Voltaire. I just think such an approach defeats too many of the aspects of the God that Leibniz wants to hold on to (of course, this is a second-hand critique, since I have yet to read his actual works).

I am not a Leibniz-ian per say. I just think his view meshes really well with the multiple world interpretation of quantum physics. I also think his theory, while not perfect, has the least amount of stumbling blocks when confronting the problem of evil

Ultimately, I do not see how offenses against God are possible; therefore, I have trouble with the concept of "sin" as opposed to "morally unjustifiable" actions (even then, though, I think it possible that morality could be a construct). If God is omnipotent, then one cannot offend God; however, one can certainly harm another individual.

I agree.

 

[Gramps]

TRUT & PKT

You are trying to read and understand the Bible with a carnal mind as scholars.

The Bible can not be read and understood with a carnal mind. You will get totally confused.

In order to have any understanding of the Bible, it must be read with a spiritual mind from the heart.

I have great respect for you both. It is obvious you both are highly intelligent.
The Bible is no ordinary book.

Now you may flame away at the old man.

 

[PKT_VOL]

TRUT & PKT

You are trying to read and understand the Bible with a carnal mind as scholars.

The Bible can not be read and understood with a carnal mind. You will get totally confused.

In order to have any understanding of the Bible, it must be read with a spiritual mind from the heart.

I have great respect for you both. It is obvious you both are highly intelligent.
The Bible is no ordinary book.

Now you may flame away at the old man.

I absolutely agree with you. That is why I often site Søren Kierkegaard. He believed that faith and rational do not mix. That faith should come from the heart. In fact, he said that faith is utterly absurd. I wish the Christian community would adopt his works as a staple of living within their faith.

 

[PKT_VOL]

He was a devote Christian fwiw.

 

[Billy Costigan]

Closest poll in Volnation history *

*polls including over 75 total votes

 

[Negateer]

The distinction is that single heterosexuals have the option to marry and obtain those rights/benefits; homosexuals do not. Should they have to marry to obtain those?

No, they shouldn't have to marry to get those. Neither should a single person.

But they should not be allowed to MARRY, since marriage is a union of a man and a woman. I am against allowing homosexuals to redefine the word.

Except for marriage laws. So, yes, there is at least one law on the books that is explicitly based on one's sexuality.

Simply put, you are an idiot.

There IS NO LAW that states that two males cannot get married because they are homosexuals. Two heterosexual males cannot get married, therefore two homosexual males cannot get married. It has nothing to do with their sexuality, it has to do with the fact that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they are both men (or both women).

Simply put (I have to be simple, so that you understand) there is no law that states that while two hetero males can get married, two homosexual males cannot. Therefore, that law is not based on sexuality. All are equal under the law. Same rules apply for heteros, as apply for homos.

Mmmkay?

Try to focus, Idiot.

 

[therealUT]

No, they shouldn't have to marry to get those. Neither should a single person.

But they should not be allowed to MARRY, since marriage is a union of a man and a woman. I am against allowing homosexuals to redefine the word.

It is okay for you to redefine the word "republic" (or, use a "modern dictionary" with a "modern definition") but it is not okay for the word "marriage" to be redefined? That is consistent.

There IS NO LAW that states that two males cannot get married because they are homosexuals. Two heterosexual males cannot get married, therefore two homosexual males cannot get married. It has nothing to do with their sexuality, it has to do with the fact that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they are both men (or both women).

Simply put (I have to be simple, so that you understand) there is no law that states that while two hetero males can get married, two homosexual males cannot. Therefore, that law is not based on sexuality. All are equal under the law. Same rules apply for heteros, as apply for homos.

Mmmkay?

Try to focus, Idiot.

Okay, Jim Crow.

 

[utvolpj]

is marriage between heterosexual men really that big an issue?

 

[Negateer]

It is okay for you to redefine the word "republic" (or, use a "modern dictionary" with a "modern definition") but it is not okay for the word "marriage" to be redefined?

Try to focus.

Okay, Jim Crow.

Awww...I guess this means you lost the 'debate'?

is marriage between heterosexual men really that big an issue?

The point is that the law is not based on one's sexual proclivities. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

If there had always been 'gay marriage', and suddenly it had been made illegal, then there might be a point to be made. But the fact is that marriage has always been, from its beginning, a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, there is no LAW against gay marriage, per se, but it's simply that 'gay marriage' is a thing which does not exist.

Saying 'gay marriage' is like sayin 'dry water'.

 

[utvolpj]

The point is that the law is not based on one's sexual proclivities. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

of course it does. Are you really going to stick with that line of thought? Everybody knows you never go full negateer

 

[Negateer]

of course it does. Are you really going to stick with that line of thought? Everybody knows you never go full negateer

Of course it does not. If it did, then heterosexual men could, right now, get married.

 

[utvolpj]

Of course it does not. If it did, then heterosexual men could, right now, get married.

can you provide a link where they have been denied?

 

[Negateer]

can you provide a link where they have been denied?

Now you're being silly. The law says they cannot, since marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I need not provide a link.

I'll make a deal with you, though. If you'll state that you believe they can in fact get married (two heterosexuals) then I will find a link showing otherwise.

But as you undoubtedly know that they cannot, I won't waste my time proving something that you already know.

 

[therealUT]

What are you babbling about?



Awww...I guess this means you lost the 'debate'?



The point is that the law is not based on one's sexual proclivities. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

If there had always been 'gay marriage', and suddenly it had been made illegal, then there might be a point to be made. But the fact is that marriage has always been, from its beginning, a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, there is no LAW against gay marriage, per se, but it's simply that 'gay marriage' is a thing which does not exist.

Since the beginning of time, marriage was defined solely as a union between a man and a woman? Not one man and multiple women? Not a lifelong sexual union between two individuals?

Marriage is a thing which is completely artificial. In fact, marriage does not exist outside of society; it is a construct of society and, therefore, it merely reflects the values of a specific society. Gay marriage, therefore, exists just as much as heterosexual marriage; it just does not exist in most societies in the U.S.

As for whether or not the term "homosexual" is explicitly stated in any law, that is absolute non-sense. By prohibiting same-sex marriages, one is prohibiting homosexual activity. Your argument serves no functional role; it is purely semantics and is purely bull-****. This is why I brought up Jim Crow: the Jim Crow laws did not explicitly mention blacks, people of color, African-Americans, etc.; however, these laws did explicitly target these groups and only these groups.

Insofar as one's spouse is designated as one's PNOK and to be a spouse one must be in a heterosexual marriage, by prohibiting same-sex marriages the law is refusing PNOK rights to homosexuals.

 

[utvolpj]

Now you're being silly. The law says they cannot, since marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I need not provide a link.

and why was it defined in that way? Are you claiming it had nothing to do with sex?

I'll make a deal with you, though. If you'll state that you believe they can in fact get married (two heterosexuals) then I will find a link showing otherwise.

my point was not that they could but that they are not trying so your point is ridiculous