I am all for debate...so here goes the counterpoint (and no, I do not take offense at various or differnt opinions)Modus Pwnens said:I'm always up for a nice discussion, and having people that have views I don't agree with is something I can often enjoy, so before I start, please don't feel offended that I have some outspoken views on religion (all of 'm, not just yours).
There we go, I know you didn't say gays are pedophiles, but when you introduced children into your example, that would be the reason that people agree with you, not the fact that they are gay. It is unacceptable for any adult to be in a lockerroom with children. Do you really think it's morally acceptable for a gay man to be in a lockerroom with girls?
The bible itself is not a good historical guide, it is full of errors, contradictions and wrong "facts".
I'll give you some examples:
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16
First off, 2 very different parts of the Bible. The first one is in the Old Testament and was part of the 10 Commandments. The second is in Romans, after the birth, death and ressurection. It is also stated that the comming of Jesus would break off all rules including the ten commandments and replace them with a simpler set. Will not go into all of that now, but hopefully shows how this is not a contradiction.Modus Pwnens said:How about this one:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
It is a bit late, and I am a bit too tired to actually look this up, but statements this short are quite possibly taken out of context.Modus Pwnens said:Want something more obvious?
"God is tired and rests" -Ex 31:17
"God is never tired and never rests" -Is 40:28
I actually do not think that "keep them for yourselves" necessarily dictates rape. Mayhaps it means make of them your wife? We all know that women did not always have equal rights. They were told who to marry and when, and that was that.Modus Pwnens said:Does that mean rape is ok cause it's in nature? Well, it's ok in the bible, so I guess so:
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Um, first amendment again? The government doesn't get a say in who churches appoint as leaders. If a church wants to exclude gays from being pastors or whatever, it can. And if a church wants to have a gay pastor, it can do that too.DarthFerret said:So you are saying that gays should be allowed to be pastors in the church?
Um, yes. Why not?Is it ok for the High School Boys Coach to be gay and in the lockeroom with them?
Fine, except what's this about a right to exist? If you changed your mind and decided some people didn't have a right to exist, would you go around killing them or something?As to my stance....personally I think it is immoral and wrong. However, I also do not plan on telling people what they can or cannot do. So, while I may believe that they are wrongheaded, and not going to acheive salvation, I believe the have the right to exist.
Actually, it's NOT the same as saying that not all men will rape a woman, but do you really want a guy in the girl's locker room? Locker rooms are segregated by gender because it's a societal standard. While we could debate the nuances of this standard and its origins, I don't think you could make a reasonable case that rape prevention was factored into it, because it was never about that. They are not segregated by sexual orientation.DarthFerret said:I did not say that gay people are pedophiles. It is the same thing as saying, not all men will rape a woman, but do you really want a guy in the girls locker room? (or vice versa?) Yes, I am a Christian, and will never hide that fact. My point, however, dealing with a preacher, is how could any organization that holds at it's core belief that being gay is wrong, be led by someone who is gay?
Let's see your proofs.The Bible is what causes me to say that marriage is religious in origin. Even if you do not believe in God, or in other doctrines, there are several proofs that the Bible is a good historical guide. (ask most historians, whether Christian or not).
Well, aside from the fact that it's misleading to say that the seal raped the penguin (it mounted it and humped it for a while), it is not "apparently" common. The even you're referring to was the first observed instance of its sort. And what's this about mammals being the most prevalent? That's wrong too. Where are you getting your information?As for naturality (since I understand freedom of religion), how does a gay person repopulate? Yes, I know that the animal kingdom does have places where is shows gay behavior (monkeys and other mamals are the most prevalent), however, the animal kingdom also shows other deviant behavior that I am quite certain we all can agree are wrong. Recently I read a weird news article about a Sea Lion raping a King Penguin. Apparently it is not all that uncommon. Does that mean that rape is ok cause it is in nature?...I assume that all of us here agree that it is not.
First amendment, once again.I believe they have equal rights. I just dont think they have equal rights in a religious organization. Of course I also do not believe that women have any place in Boy Scouts, or that men have any place in Girl Scouts. It is in the name....
I'm not an anthropologist. What you're saying might be right, but I don't see how it accounts for polyandry.turgy22 said:A few points:
1) Marriage does not originate from religion. It actually originates from the idea that women are property. A man would buy a woman from her family (hence, a dowry) to guarantee that no one slept with her but him. This tradition morphed into what we now call marriage. FWIW, marriage actually predates the bible (unless you believe in creationism.)
Well, I think that if the government is going to sanction marriage at all, then yeah, it should sanction any marriage between adults. But personally, I don't like marriage. Not that there aren't some good things about it and some rights people should have are kind of bound up in it now with the way it works, but we could do without government sanctioned marriage.So basically, I don't understand why the government shouldn't sanction any marriage between adults. Whether it's a man and woman, two men or two women, what difference does it make to the government? All you're doing is granting people the same rights as everyone else, regardless of sexual preference.
DF's example was a high school locker room. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. High school students are adolescents or even legal adults (I turned 18 when I was in high school). I know this is kind of nitpicky, but I think it's important because you put DF on the defensive by turning his example into the infamous "gays go after young boys" line.Modus Pwnens said:The thing that disgusts me most of all is your suggestion that gay people are pedophiles. You are entitled to your own believes, and I won't hide that I do not believe in any god, but please don't bother other people with it (which seems to be the American way of life, not just limited to marriage).
Well, that's not really a contradiction. But it's kind of messed up. Something that was okay or even necessary before is all of the sudden "wicked"?DarthFerret said:As for this first one. Genesis is chronologically before Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If you do believe in the Bible (which I do) then you know that Adam and Eve were the first and everyone else would be a brother or sister. Therefore, in the interest of population alone, interfamily relations are a must. However, after a certain period of time (be it acutal time, or measurement of population growth) God puts in place the law that you should not lie with your sister. Not sure if this is a good job of the chronological order or not.
Context: The first scripture explains why the Sabbath is so special. It's because it is a sign of the covenant between the LORD (I forget which god that's referring to, El or Yah) and his people. It represents the seventh day of creation, on which he rested. The second scripture is part of Isaiah's prophecy about how Babylon would enslave the Hebrews. After making this dire prediction, there's a whole lecture on the glory and majesty of the LORD/God. The bit that's relevant to our discussion is one in which we learn that he never gets tired.It is a bit late, and I am a bit too tired to actually look this up, but statements this short are quite possibly taken out of context.
So after killing the kings of Midian and butchering all of the men, capture the women and children, then bring them to Moses. He is absolutely livid because some of these women may have had something to do with Balaam (like, talked to him). So he has them butcher all of the male children/babies and all of the women that are not virgins. But he has them keep the virgin females alive for themselves.I actually do not think that "keep them for yourselves" necessarily dictates rape. Mayhaps it means make of them your wife? We all know that women did not always have equal rights. They were told who to marry and when, and that was that.
Actually, you left the contradiction alone. If you seriously think there are no contradictions in the bible, I can generate a much more exhaustive list than what Modus did. And I'll even leave out implied contradictions or contradictions having to do with whether something was right or wrong at a given time.This is merely a rebut against the Bible contradictions.
What kind of right? And are you saying that gay athletes should be barred from using locker rooms? This all seems pretty ridiculous.I do not think that female reporters have a "right" to be in a male team's locker room. Same as if it were a "gay" man. Also vice-versa.
Okay, so this is a slippery slope fallacy. But why not? Why can't pedophiles and terrorists have equal rights?Will pedophiles ask for equal rights? What about confirmed and self-admitted terrorists?
You're not making any sense. You do understand what equal rights means, don't you? It means if I am allowed to do something, you should be allowed to do it too. If I'm allowed to wear red and the government bans you from wearing red because you fit into some group, then we don't have equal rights. Neither of us has the right to hack other people's websites. Equal rights doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. It just means you aren't marginalized. This seems simple.What about my equal right to crash this entire message board (don't worry, I have no intention of and no clue how to do that...he he)?
Well, there's this thing we have for that called the law. You may have heard of it. It's not perfect, but it does draw lines, lots of them.Does the free information act cover child porn? Curse words? Sexually explicit material? Illegal drug sales (they are not illegal in every country right?). Lines must be drawn somewhere. The question is not only who draws the lines but where they must be drawn.
Does anyone really have to answer this question? Isn't it obvious? These types of people are infringing on another's rights without their consent......Oversoul said:Okay, so this is a slippery slope fallacy. But why not? Why can't pedophiles and terrorists have equal rights?
An interesting choice of words, as that's exactly what this whole debate is all about, whether gay people should be allowed to marry or not. Or do gay people have no rights?Mooseman said:These types of people are infringing on another's rights without their consent.
Modus Pwnens said:An interesting choice of words, as that's exactly what this whole debate is all about, whether gay people should be allowed to marry or not. Or do gay people have no rights?
I'll grant you that for terrorists if you like. It's a matter of semantics. We arrest people for murder, trying to blow stuff up, etc. Not for being a terrorist or admitting to being a terrorist. I would say that terrorists should have the same rights as everyone else. But being able to commit acts of terrorism without consequence isn't one of those rights. Of course, if it is necessary for one to commit an act of terrorism in order to be considered a terrorist (and I'm guessing that you would say it is), then terrorists are indeed infringing on the rights of others.Mooseman said:Does anyone really have to answer this question? Isn't it obvious? These types of people are infringing on another's rights without their consent......
Having a driver's license isn't a right. But being able to get one, provided one meets the prerequisites, is. If the government denied all homosexuals the ability to obtain a driver's license, I'd call that an infringement of their rights. Excluding people for medical reasons is different: it presents too great a safety risk. Getting married doesn't risk anyone's life.A gay person should be entitled to all rights that non-gays are, however, what makes it a right to enter a marriage. Is that not more of a privelege, kinda like a drivers license?
America doesn't think anything. It's just a country. People think. Countries are stupid. What does this have to do with anything, anyway?Modus Pwnens said:I do dislike the way America thinks it's so much better than the rest of the world.
There is a difference, but is that enough to make a difference..... both are a danger to society.Oversoul said:But pedophiles? I'm guessing you mean child-molesters. It's a pet-peeve of mine, but common enough that I should expect it. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and certainly not all pedophiles are child molesters.
So someone who has never committed a crime and has no intention of doing so is a danger to society?Mooseman said:There is a difference, but is that enough to make a difference..... both are a danger to society.