Paperman299
VIP Member
- Apr 16, 2014
- 602
- 101
The wording of the question is "Should Society Accept Homosexuality?" In fact, it's right there at the top of the poll. This disingenuous tactic of demanding to have your hand held through every tedious step of the discussion is getting tiring, as is your insistence on vacillating between homosexuality and equal marriage as suits your purpose.What do they mean by ok with it? It depends how you word it. Basically, in no way does your question mean these people support gay marriage. Someone can be against sodomy laws, but oppose gay marriage. someone can support sodomy laws, but support lenient enforcement, like most people did until recently. Basically, keep the behavior to the fringes of society and only prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy and keep it from children. I support this. I guess depending on how the question is worded, I "accept it", meaning I don't think people should be arrested for having this mental illness and engaging in their deviant acts as long as it is private. However, I support Russian style laws, where their propaganda is banned and they can't make displays in public. So in conclusion, you haven't shown what is meant by the question, and it can be interpreted several different ways. But none of those way entail support for gay marriage. Thus, you have failed in your contention that my view is unusual, and therefore invalid.People didn't acknowledge homosexuality exists, they said they were okay with it. And how can you continue to demand proof of the changing opinion of equal marriage specifically when the last three pages of this thread have been about nothing but?That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."
You were wrong.
I said that what we would today describe as homosexual behavior appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.
What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was not the point of my post.
They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about a lot of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is in no way good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?
I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?
Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.
You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.
I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.
First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.
Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.
I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.
Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.
You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.
Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.
So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.
If you have confidence in your theological stance, fine. 50 years ago we'd have had this same argument over anti-miscegenation laws. "But it's in the New Testament!" "But the Ten Commandments are still hip because they're not kosher!" These theological minutiae mean nothing to me, but if the Old Testament is so unimportant you may want to inform fellow Christians, who continue to tout its lessons.
If you have any proof besides the Bible that equal marriage is destructive for society, by all means share it with us.
Also, you are misconstruing my position. My position on gay marriage isn't based on public opinion. My contention was with your characterization of my view as unusual, which it isn't. You are the one with the odd view. Outside of your secular western bubble, opposition to gay marriage is nearly universal.
You are just creating strawman after strawman. Look, if you have problems with Jesus not holding us to kosher laws you cite and perfecting the Old Testament law, perhaps you should look to Judaism. However, you cannot call us hypocrites or picking and choosing when we oppose gay marriage but don't follow Kosher laws.
Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law Catholic Answers
I think the proof that homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is more destructive than heterosexuality is obvious, if you need a link to see this, I don't really see us going anywhere.
And then you post more scripture! I am not a Christian. I do not care about your myriad self-contradictory rules. And my position, no matter how many times you have tried to misconstrue it, remains the same: not that your position is invalid because it's unusual, but that the Bible has no legal standing.
Just for a change of pace, though let's talk about your monstrous "position." "Keep the behavior to the fringes of society?" "Prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy?" "Keep it from children?" "Russian-style laws?" It amazes me how often bigots will weaponize children to justify their own prejudices. And how do you justify these strict measures? You've offered no proof of homosexuality's detrimental effect on society. You insist it's self-apparent, but that's bull. If there was current, solid medical or sociological evidence of your claim, you'd be touting it like a banner.
