The you don't want to get involved in this discussion thread (split)

[utvolpj]

Just like for example I could struggle with lust, it is just the giving in to a desire. God did not make him gay, but Satan can deceive us to justify a sin. I can not say, well I can not help it, the desire to look is too hard. It is with God's strength we can turn away from sin. I can not just grit my teeth and do it on my own.

but what if God made dat booty for you to look at and you're missing out?

 

[Burhead]

Just like for example I could struggle with lust, it is just the giving in to a desire. God did not make him gay, but Satan can deceive us to justify a sin. I can not say, well I can not help it, the desire to look is too hard. It is with God's strength we can turn away from sin. I can not just grit my teeth and do it on my own.

So basically you're in the, "Pray the Gay Away" crowd? When it is proven that you are born either heterosexual or homosexual, what than? If there is a God, and He created gays, why would He tell them they can't enjoy life and find love? Too me that isn't painting a picture of the loving and caring God I've heard so much about.

 

[jp1]

So basically you're in the, "Pray the Gay Away" crowd? When it is proven that you are born either heterosexual or homosexual, what than? If there is a God, and he created gays, why would he tell them they can't enjoy life and find love? Too me that isn't painting a picture of they loving and caring God I've heard so much about.

Have you given God a chance to prove to you that he is a loving and caring God?

 

[vol2002]

scientifically prove the subjectivity of morals?

Sure.

Seems like some are suggesting the idea of God is silly. But they also seem quite passionate about this concept that homosexuality should be embraced by America and basically every other culture on earth.

If they don't believe in God and believe morality is subjective, I don't understand why they are passionate about this issue.

Just trying to understand, that's all.

 

[Burhead]

Have you given God a chance to prove to you that he is a loving and caring God?

Raised in a religious and even baptized, I got fed up with the hypocrisy from within the Christian faith.

 

[utvolpj]

Sure.

Seems like some are suggesting the idea of God is silly. But they also seem quite passionate about this concept that homosexuality should be embraced by America and basically every other culture on earth.

If they don't believe in God and believe morality is subjective, I don't understand why they are passionate about this issue.

Just trying to understand, that's all.

what you asked earlier makes no sense

the concept many want embraced is that consenting adults should be allowed the same rights/access regardless of their sexuality. Not sure how else to explain it

 

[volnpowell]

Raised in a religious and even baptized, I got fed up with the hypocrisy from within the Christian faith.

Unfortunately we are human and sin. Also quite a few claim to be Christians but are not, they may believe in God in their head ( head knowledge I have heard it called). Being a Christian is telling God you surrender your life to him and his plan for it, and repent (which means to turn away from) sin. Being baptized is just symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ ( buried with Christ in baptism risen to a new life in Christ). We ( me included will be judged when we were a poor example of a Christian and was a stumbling block to someone else becoming a Christian.

 

[jp1]

Raised in a religious and even baptized, I got fed up with the hypocrisy from within the Christian faith.

There is hypocrisy within everything human. That shouldnt be a reason for you to stop your own personal relationship with God.

 

[gcbvol]

Just like for example I could struggle with lust, it is just the giving in to a desire. God did not make him gay, but Satan can deceive us to justify a sin. I can not say, well I can not help it, the desire to look is too hard. It is with God's strength we can turn away from sin. I can not just grit my teeth and do it on my own.

Respectfully, it doesn't work like that for everyone. I spent several years begging for God to make me 'normal', and nothing changed. I was a devout Christian trying to deal with it. Did not matter. I know several others who had similar experiences to my own. If you feel God has answered your prayers and helped you I am sincerely very happy about that. Not everyone shares that experience, however.

If God exists I believe completely that He intended me to be gay. Obviously it wasn't an important enough issue for Him to do anything about it after years of begging.

 

[Burhead]

There is hypocrisy within everything human. That shouldnt be a reason for you to stop your own personal relationship with God.

I probably should clarify that I also realized how stupid it was to believe that a book written centuries ago, about a man with magical powers, was foolish from the get go.

 

[vol2002]

what you asked earlier makes no sense

the concept many want embraced is that consenting adults should be allowed the same rights/access regardless of their sexuality. Not sure how else to explain it

Coming from an atheist or agnostic viewpoint, why is that the standard by which we must address this issue?

Why is that standard right for our culture? Why is that standard right for every other culture on earth?

Those are my questions. Just trying to understand.

 

[Burhead]

Coming from an atheist or agnostic viewpoint, why is that the standard by which we must address this issue?

Why is that standard right for our culture? Why is that standard right for every other culture on earth?

Those are my questions. Just trying to understand.

I pretty sure the argument utvolpj is trying to make, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the government shouldn't be involved in banning what goes on behind closed doors.

 

[utvolpj]

Coming from an atheist or agnostic viewpoint, why is that the standard by which we must address this issue?

Why is that standard right for our culture? Why is that standard right for every other culture on earth?

Those are my questions. Just trying to understand.

what is your justification for limiting rights of consenting adults? Our society should be built on expanding freedoms and not limiting them. Why do you believe that is incorrect?

 

[jp1]

I probably should clarify that I also realized how stupid it was to believe that a book written centuries ago, about a man with magical powers, was foolish from the get go.

Thats unfortunate that you would feel that way. I don't know anything about you but I pray that you reconsider your position at some point.

 

[thebjd]

what is your justification for limiting rights of consenting adults? Our society should be built on expanding freedoms and not limiting them. Why do you believe that is incorrect?

What rights do they not have? The rights granted in our constitution apply equally to all. People call things rights that are not "rights". Which of them are being witheld from gay people.

 

[vol2002]

what is your justification for limiting rights of consenting adults? Our society should be built on expanding freedoms and not limiting them. Why do you believe that is incorrect?

I think my views on this as a bible-believing Christian have been expressed very well by other posters in this thread.

I'm really interested in understanding the views of the atheists and agnostics who have taken what I believe are some surprisingly strong positions on this.

Not to take this too far off track, but I'd be interested how they define the term "adult" and why that is an absolute definition for every person and every culture. I'd also be interested why they believe society absolutely "should be" built on expanding freedoms?

I guess where I'm going is I've always assumed atheists/agnostics believe this universe is ultimately some type of randomly occurring cosmic accident with no transcendant meaning or purpose. Coming from that framework, I've been curious how they can make statements that some things are "right" and other things are "wrong." What is the origin of this right/wrong framework? And specific to this debate, why is expanding marriage to homosexuals absolutely the "right" thing to do for ours and every other culture?

 

[Burhead]

I think my views on this as a bible-believing Christian have been expressed very well by other posters in this thread.

I'm really interested in understanding the views of the atheists and agnostics who have taken what I believe are some surprisingly strong positions on this.

Not to take this too far off track, but I'd be interested how they define the term "adult" and why that is an absolute definition for every person and every culture. I'd also be interested why they believe society absolutely "should be" built on expanding freedoms?

I guess where I'm going is I've always assumed atheists/agnostics believe this universe is ultimately some type of randomly occurring cosmic accident with no transcendant meaning or purpose. Coming from that framework, I've been curious how they can make statements that some things are "right" and other things are "wrong." What is the origin of this right/wrong framework? And specific to this debate, why is expanding marriage to homosexuals absolutely the "right" thing to do for ours and every other culture?

Are you proposing that without religion one would have no sense of right and wrong?

 

[Burhead]

What rights do they not have? The rights granted in our constitution apply equally to all. People call things rights that are not "rights". Which of them are being witheld from gay people.

The right to marry?

 

[BearCat204]

Kind of like god. No proof.

You just broke the Internet

 

[bkdamoron]

I think my views on this as a bible-believing Christian have been expressed very well by other posters in this thread.

I'm really interested in understanding the views of the atheists and agnostics who have taken what I believe are some surprisingly strong positions on this.

Not to take this too far off track, but I'd be interested how they define the term "adult" and why that is an absolute definition for every person and every culture. I'd also be interested why they believe society absolutely "should be" built on expanding freedoms?

I guess where I'm going is I've always assumed atheists/agnostics believe this universe is ultimately some type of randomly occurring cosmic accident with no transcendant meaning or purpose. Coming from that framework, I've been curious how they can make statements that some things are "right" and other things are "wrong." What is the origin of this right/wrong framework? And specific to this debate, why is expanding marriage to homosexuals absolutely the "right" thing to do for ours and every other culture?

I think people wrongly assume that atheism and morals are mutually exclusive. Not all people need religion to act morally (I agree that some people do, however).

I have had lots of gay friends and acquaintances and all of them are normal people (I don't care for flamboyant gays just like I don't care for flamboyantly straight people). I don't see why they can't be afforded the same rights that I am under the law. They all pay their taxes and are not criminals (ironically, criminals who are incarcerated for the worst of crimes are still allowed to get married). The only reason they are prohibited from these rights is because of a religion that some of them don't even follow.

 

[utvolpj]

Not to take this too far off track, but I'd be interested how they define the term "adult" and why that is an absolute definition for every person and every culture. I'd also be interested why they believe society absolutely "should be" built on expanding freedoms?

as a society we have already defined adult. I work within that and apply it to the laws I'm subject to

you have to believe our freedoms are too much, too little or just right. I believe we have too little and a part of that is this biblical concept of marriage taken on by our govt. Honestly they should just get out of it altogether and we'd be better off. Since that's not likely to ever happen they should open it up and allow everyone to participate

I guess where I'm going is I've always assumed atheists/agnostics believe this universe is ultimately some type of randomly occurring cosmic accident with no transcendant meaning or purpose. Coming from that framework, I've been curious how they can make statements that some things are "right" and other things are "wrong." What is the origin of this right/wrong framework? And specific to this debate, why is expanding marriage to homosexuals absolutely the "right" thing to do for ours and every other culture?

whether the universe has a purpose or not is irrelevant. Morals can exist outside and separate from any religious belief or text. Creating laws to claim rights/privileges for yourself while prohibiting others is simply wrong IMO.

 

[vol2002]

Are you proposing that without religion one would have no sense of right and wrong?

Not exactly. But I am suggesting it would be ultimately meaningless for them if they did.

I'm also suggesting that I don't think they would have a basis within the context of an atheist/agnostic worldivew to try and convince anyone else of their sense of right and wrong (which it seems some on this board may be trying to do). How in the world could anyone decipher whether they are really "right"?

 

[vol2002]

as a society we have already defined adult. I work within that and apply it to the laws I'm subject to

you have to believe our freedoms are too much, too little or just right. I believe we have too little and a part of that is this biblical concept of marriage taken on by our govt. Honestly they should just get out of it altogether and we'd be better off. Since that's not likely to ever happen they should open it up and allow everyone to participate



whether the universe has a purpose or not is irrelevant. Morals can exist outside and separate from any religious belief or text. Creating laws to claim rights/privileges for yourself while prohibiting others is simply wrong IMO.

Nothing can be "simply wrong" if there are no "absolutes."

Also, what is the state of a morals "existence"? Is it a material thing arising from natural evolutionary processes?

Again, I'm not sure I understand your worldview.

 

[utvolpj]

Nothing can be "simply wrong" if there are no "absolutes."

Also, what is the state of a morals "existence"? Is it a material thing arising from natural evolutionary processes?

Again, I'm not sure I understand your worldview.

you're not really making sense. A person can absolutely know or understand right/wrong without bringing religion into it. All views eventually evolve including ones held by religious people. This isn't something you can pin down like the beak of a bird like you want.

you likely don't understand because you attribute your morality to your religion without believing anyone could do it without.

 

[gcbvol]

...you attribute your morality to your religion without believing anyone could do it without.

The same religious morality that has been used to defend slavery, oppose women's right to vote and interracial marriage. Not bashing religion with this, but showing how even biblical morality has evolved.