Author
|
Topic: Same Sex Marriage (Read 31263 times)
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
The reason that he is providing both "sides" facts is because he wants both sides to know all there is to know abou the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
Cigarette smoking is actually a health issue; and prohibition was enacted partly because the drunks back then where breaking other laws (getting too roudy).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
But sins should not have legal relavence. Its true that many sins and crimes are the same (murder, theft) but they are not the same. Jealousy is a sin, but no one would dream of making it a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Note that I was arguing FOR civil gay marriage within the assumption that it WAS a sin.
SO, what you just said was the core of my argument.
From a legal standpoint, it should be permitted, even if in the eyes of God it is abominable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
So we're in agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Captain_Falkenhayn
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 19
dark horse disney
|
11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Sayyyyy, they're talking about shellfish there, aren't they?
I could quote verses about unicorns, nothing being poisonous, contradictions, death proscription for copulating with a menstruating woman, etc.. But we all know I would be wasting my time.
What I want to know is whether homosexuality is wrong because gOD says so, or because it is inherently immoral.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
What you're asking there is something philosophers have been trying to ascertain for a long while: "Is God above good, or is good above God?" It's a straw-man falacy though, the unspoken answer is the one accepted by Judeo-Christian believers: "God and good are one and the same."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Captain_Falkenhayn
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 19
dark horse disney
|
If they are one and the same, then murdering a ten year old would not be wrong unless gOD said it was. I beg to differ.
I ask again: If gOD did not condemn homosexual behavior, would it still be wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
And I repeat again; you're asking a silly question. God does not condone homosexual behavior (in humans; who knows about animals), just as he does not condone murder. His condoning or condemnation aren't governed by an outside measure of what is right though. According to Judeo-Christian theologians, He _is_ right (not in the sense of being in accordance with the truth, but in the sense of being the truth itself).
He's also not a judicial dictator who just arbitrarily decides what is right and what is wrong, (unless you believe comparison to Himself to be an arbitrary measure).
To sum up: If I said yes to your answer, I would be saying that "good is above God". If I said no, I would be saying that "God is above good".
Another facet: I suppose one could go the route of Plato and look at the word "wrong" and remove any implications about spirituality. At which point the question would be like asking "is 2+2=5 wrong?". Then you could say:
Q: Functionally, what is sexual intercourse for?
A: Continuation of the Species
Q: Does Homosexual sexual intercourse fulfill this role?
A: No.
In that sense, it could be considered wrong even if it weren't a sin.
Edit: Just realized that it was Plato's ethics that dealt with fulfilment of purpose, not Aristotle's
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 26, 2004, 06:12:51 am by Culture20 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
Homosexual marriage is not for procriation (duh). I am not a homosexual, and maybe picowoof could correct me though I don't know if he still frequents this forum, but it is done for pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
Pleasure is a by-product which is intended to make people (creatures in general) want to reproduce. I know that children aren't produced from a homosexual union (that was my point in the Platonic reasoning above).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
The biological purpose of sex should not restrict peoples rights. They arn't indangering the human race. Your right, people arn't born gay, its a decision people make. But they should have the right to that decision, and still be treated like everone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
