Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[UndecidedFrog]

PART 3

The question is not whether or not we treat a person with dignity and respect, that should be a given since we are all made in the image and likeness of God, but whether what they do is actually right or whether it is morally wrong/evil. If it is wrong then it is not morally wrong to speak out against it -is it? Just because a society supports something does not necessarily qualify it as good - does it? Would you agree or do you think that the Holocaust can be justified also? -Me

Is it morally wrong to own slaves? -UF

It depends what you mean by the word slave?

I consider slavery as human ownership. The owner of a slave has the right to trade the slave as chattal. The owner of the slave has all the rights that the bible confers to the owner of the slave, including the ownership of their progeny, the right to beat them to a certain degree (so that they can get up next morning), etc.

I am familiar with the apolgetic arguments of redefining the biblical slave as not being similar to the slavery experienced by Africans in the 1800s. I don't buy those arguments for they are unconvincing.

[UndecidedFrog]

Is it morally wrong to stone people who work on the sabbath? -UF

Applied to a specific people for a specific time - OT Israel. They entered into an agreement with God in which they agreed to be His people and live by His commands and decrees. We, as Christians, live under the New Covenant.

So what you are saying is that the god of the bible changed what he considered right and wrong for different societies (jews, christians) and different times.

Is it evil to wear clothing of mixed fabrics? -UF

I don't know the answer but again contend it may apply to OT Israel. Can you give the book and verse?

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Is it evil to have mixed race marriages? -UF

No. When the Israel of old entered into an agreement with God they made the commitment to live according to His decrees and commands. They were instructed not to enter into relationships with other nations because these relationships would corrupt and defile them. In the New Covenant a Christian is free to marry people from other nations and races, but the stipulation is that we should not marry an unbeliever because we operate by two different standards.

Can you see how some (pre-1967) people who supported anti-miscegenation laws in the US used the above verse from Leviticus 19:19 to justify their position? Who is to say that their interpretation of the bible is incorrect? Who is to say that their cherry-picked list is incorrect and your cherry-picked list is correct?

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think there is an objective criteria that can properly be used to determine what is right from wrong.

Then how do you draw a moral distinction between the arsonost and the firefighter? Between the thief and the security guard? If your house was broken into and your valuables stolen, would you seek justice, or would you rely on the argument that there is no objective standard for saying that anything wrong actually occurred?

If there is no objective standard for right and wrong, then how is our objection to homosexuality "irrational?" How can you claim that Christians on this board have exhibited "bad behavior" toward you if you there is no objective means of determining what is good or bad behavior in the first place?

From observing different societies I see that they have different laws (codified morality). Even from observing the same society over time, I see their laws change over time. If you agree that these observations are correct, how can you arrive at an objective cirteria that is used for all societies?

Even societies that don't believe in God have laws agaisnt murder, stealing, rape and many of the same basic moral standards that we have in the west.

PGA, on 25 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

Quote

Is it morally wrong to stone people who work on the sabbath? -UF

Applied to a specific people for a specific time - OT Israel. They entered into an agreement with God in which they agreed to be His people and live by His commands and decrees. We, as Christians, live under the New Covenant.

So what you are saying is that the god of the bible changed what he considered right and wrong for different societies (jews, christians) and different times.

No. What you don't understand is that Israel's laws covered both moral issues and issues that surrounded ritual purity. That is why God gave laws to Israel regarding things like what they could or could not eat, the prohibition against wearing garments made of linen and wool. Those laws do not pertain to moral issues but rather to Israel's ritual purity under a theocratic reign.

Not all laws that were given to Israel were meant for all people for all time. While the moral standards never changed, the laws regarding ritual purity were not universal and only applied Israel and then only applied to Israel as theocracy. That also explains why the civil code givenn to Israel does not extend beyond Israel.

The New Covenant is an expansion of the OT but the laws of the NT are moral in nature. What was morally wrong in the OT is morally wrong today.

Can you see how some (pre-1967) people who supported anti-miscegenation laws in the US used the above verse from Leviticus 19:19 to justify their position? Who is to say that their interpretation of the bible is incorrect? Who is to say that their cherry-picked list is incorrect and your cherry-picked list is correct?

People twist and pervert the Bible all the time to justify strange interpretations. The reason we can say they are wrong is that the rest of the Bible doesn't support THAT interpretation. When someone can only appeal to one verse to support a position, it is called "proof texting" and ususally amounts to the person taking the verse and ripping it from the natural context in order to mold the Bible around what they believe. They taking a verse to support their view, rather than allow their view to be informed by the intent of the author. They reading their views into the verse. If that verse from Levititcus is allowed to remain in its natural context, there is no way it could have been used to support the anti-micegenation laws.

I believe same-sex marriages should be permitted because it promotes happiness between homosexual couples who want to commit to each other in the same way heterosexual couples do. I see this happiness does not infringe anybody else's rights. I do not see how homosexual marriages harming anyone.

If some people do not want homosexual marriage, then they should not marry a homosexual.

However, they should not prohibit others who do want this.

to what moral standard do you ground those views? If there is no objective standard of right and wrong, why should I care about what makes others happy?

[PGA]

Hi D-9,

In Christian theology any sin, no matter how miniscule in quality or quantity, is unacceptable as God calls us to be pure and perfect just as God himself is pure and perfect. In that respect, having a spur of the moment fantasy about a girl is a damning as murder. Both is sin, and the wadge of any sin is death. -D-9

But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus for those who believe and are justified freely by His grace and His life and His death are counted to us; His life in that He has lived the perfect life in our stead here on earth and in His death in that His death as meet and paid for our sins and suffered the wrath that we deserved! In His resurrection He has crossed over from death to life for there was nothing that could hold Him in the grave since He Himself committed no wrong, and we who believe and are justified are counted in Him. Eternal life is Jesus Christ for only God is eternal (we had a beginning) and we in Him!

In my experience here at Worthy, many don't divorce their theology from what authority they give themselves over the lives of others. It is one thing to express your view on the sinful nature of homosexuality, it is quite another to attempt to force others to conform to your way of thinking and lifestyle by the law. For example I don't smoke cigarettes, I think it is a nasty habit and I wish everyone would stop. However I don't think it is my right to force adults to quit smoking; if you want to do that to your body that is ultimately your choice to make. In many respects I don't see this basic libertarian mentality expressed too much here. -D-9

I think the biblical reference you choose speaks for itself and that is that love rejoices in the truth.

As for forcing others to conform to our way of thinking, only God can do that. I believe what we are attempting to do is to shine some light into why the unbeliever lives inconsistently and why their world-view ultimately undermines itself and cannot make sense of itself. We are attempting to demonstrate the necessary standard for truth and the guidelines for knowing what is right. I remember a little ditty I heard a long time ago that has stuck with me:

"Change a man against his will, he remains the same unchanged still."

I think you are misunderstanding why we are opposed to homosexuality. Plain and simple, it is wrong. What we are witnessing in these debates is that the unbeliever cannot justify their unbelief because they have no solid moral grounds to stand on. It constantly shifts under their feet, like sinking sand. They, like you, think that any behaviour is OK as long as it doesn't hurt anyone but possibly the person(s) consenting to do it. 'As long as it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else then do it!' The whole issue is over whether their behaviour is right or wrong, not whether they have a preference for it or not. If you want to judge everything by preference then why not throw away the rule book and become an advocate for anarchy along these lines? As I mentioned before there is a homosexual group - NAMBLA - that is pushing for the right to have consensual sex with young boys. Just google the word or go to the organization and see what they are pushing for yourself.

As Candice said in difference words, a little yeast spreads through the whole batch of doe. "Once the foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3) Darkness needs light so that what is done can be seen for what it is. Jesus said that a light is no good when it is concealed.

In treating people with dignity and respect does that mean that we forgo the right to also stand against wrongful behaviour? Love protect, it forgives, it keeps not record of wrong, but it also stands for truth and righteousness. That is a part of protecting.

I would still like to know from those who believe that gay marriage will open the flood gates of pedophilia, as I see such a leap along the lines of alcohol to cocaine or heroin, why we, as society, haven't lined the supermarkets with truly dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin? If it is because there are strong differences between alcohol and much harder drugs to the point that secular society has drawn a line, why won't the case be true of pedophilia? -D-9

People are always trying to push the bounds of morality to suit their particular lifestyle wants. Once the gatekeepers, the mass media, the intellectually elite, the governing bodies, the universities and institutions of learning join the band-wagon it is only a matter of time before the idea filters down into the mainstream and is accepted by the masses - the sheep, the followers, those who have not thought through the issue deeply and realized its harmful effects. We saw how Hollywood took hold of the homosexual agenda in the 1920's and has so saturated the marketplace of ideas to the point where every show has its token gay-rights advocate or promotional piece. There are two shows on TV that I am aware of that are now pushing the polygamous lifestyle, Sister Wives and Big Love. Free love of every kind is seen every night - adultery, sexual immorality and innuendo, violence, rape, incest, abortion, man's inhumanity to man, etc., to the point where we are all desensitized to what is right and what is wrong. Relativism and postmodern though pervade every avenue of life that people are now becoming convinced that anything can be justified as right if they so choose to believe it is right. That is exactly the issue we are debating now on this particular topic and most of the others are related. It does boil down to moral issues and how to justify those moral issues once you strip the veneer off the table, so to speak.

We also saw how Planned Parenthood has filtrated most countries on earth, but have you every read any of the philosophy of its founder, Margaret Sanger? The greatest holocaust this world has ever known is abortion, in which an estimated 800,000,000 lives have been taken. There is one website that compares Hitler's Holocaust to the abortion holocaust and compares both ideologies of its founders and advocates. I can't find it but here are similar sites.

http://www.blowthetrumpet.org/AbortionandtheHolocaust.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/nazis.html

The supermarket may not be carrying brands of heroin and cocaine, but the marketplace of ideas is and some people are stocking their shelves with ideas such as what is wrong is actually right for them. Notice how many times when an atheist or agnostic is pushed to the point of accountability and their veneer is stripped away that they resort to phrases like, 'it's my opinion' as if this now justifies what they believe as being actually right when in fact they have no sense of the actual. They are defending the behaviour itself, not the morality of the behaviour - the ought or ought not to of the behaviour - because they have no clear definition of ought. Ought to them changes like the wind, one minute it is and the next it isn't. Good is bad and bad is good.

Thanks for the rant!

Peter

[PGA]

Hi UF,

Unfortunately I don't have time to continue our discussion for a few days - working, but I would like to clarify a term I used. When I said 'argue' I meant it in the sense of what happens in a debate when two sides lay down their case. It is called presenting an argument. Of the two definitions provided I had in mind the second, although sometimes the second can lead to the first.

Argument:

• An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
• A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

[UndecidedFrog]

Hi UF,

Unfortunately I don't have time to continue our discussion for a few days - working, but I would like to clarify a term I used. When I said 'argue' I meant it in the sense of what happens in a debate when two sides lay down their case. It is called presenting an argument. Of the two definitions provided I had in mind the second, although sometimes the second can lead to the first.

Argument:

• An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
• A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Peter,

No problems, respond when you can.

I prefer not to use the word argue to describe a sharing of perspective, no matter how divergent they may be. The word often comes along with other connotations of acrimony (typically angry or heated) associated with the word argument. I dislike heat and anger.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[PGA]

Hi UF and D-9,

Sorry for the delay. I've been busy working and have a family engagement this weekend but I'm taking my laptop and working on a reply. Hopefully late Sunday night.

Peter

[PGA]

Hi UF,

I don't think there is an objective criteria that can properly be used to determine what is right from wrong. From observing different societies I see that they have different laws (codified morality). Even from observing the same society over time, I see their laws change over time. If you agree that these observations are correct, how can you arrive at an objective cirteria that is used for all societies? -UF

Outside of God I would agree. But just because you don't think so does not necessarily make something so. The fact that different societies, mostly that worship a man-made idea of a god or gods, have different laws belabours my point that outside of God morality cannot be made sense of. How can what one person, one group, one society calls good be called wrong by another person, group, society? Who is actually 'right?' You keep showing me social preferences but no ideal measure that can define why something is right or wrong.

Right:

1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.

2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.

3. correct in judgment, opinion, or action.

4. fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.

5. most convenient, desirable, or favourable...

The very reason people cannot make sense of right and wrong is because they have hardened their hearts to God in order to practice sinful behaviour and don't know what right is. People, in ignoring God's decrees and judgments, are making up their own idea of goodness. That is why the idea of what is good is constantly changing.

Additionally, from observations, I have seen typically, those with power determine the laws that are passed or not passed. In some cases, those with power are given power by the people who elect them into offices of power. In other cases, those in power usurped the power with the backing of a strong military, such as certain dictatorships you have mentioned. And yet in other cases, those in power have gained their power by asserting (and having others believing) their divine right to power, either divine monarchy or theocracy. In all cases, these people in power determine the law of the land in the societies they rule. -UF

Again the question comes up as to who is right? How can two societies that have contrary definitions on what is good both be right in their definition? It goes against the very definition of good. What you are saying is that those in power, no matter how they get there have the ability to impose rules and therefore whatever they impose is good and right for that society, even if it opposes the good and right of another society. Under such circumstances you have no moral basis to object to Hitler and his extermination of 12 million undesirables because by such reasoning what that society did was good and right by the definition of their leader(s).

Why 'should' (notice the moral distinctive) what you consider right apply to what another people considers right? If Hitler said it was right then it was right for that society under your definition.

Generally, modern societies have evolved (forgive the term, I do not mean any biology here) to a point such that they recognize that the pursuit of happiness, as long as that pursuit does not damage or infringe on others rights, are to be permitted. Of course there are many exceptions to this generality. One such example is the prohibition of same-sex marriage in the state of California, as stated in Proposition 8, which was backed by contributions of about $20million from the LDS church. -UF

The pursuit of happiness defined by whom? Who gets to say what should be permissible unless there is a definite standard that defines what happiness is? Again, I think you are equating/confusing pleasure to happiness. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

[PGA]

In order for you to show me why your opinion is anything other than an opinion I need to see how/why you, your group, your society actually has an objective measure/reference/standard/ideal for what is best. You can't measure what is good without knowing what is best or the ideal good. You have shown me that you agree with the preference of your society and nothing more unless you can do so. When you are dealing with the issues of right and wrong I hope you have something substantial that can back up your view. -Me

Sorry, my opinion is just my opinion. I am not attempting to change your mind about this. All I hope to do is share with you my perspective. If in the sharing, you come to understand how I see things, even though you might not agree with it, that's great. I do not view homosexual marriage as a bad thing at all. -UF

Precisely, it is just your opinion and as such there is nothing compelling about what you are saying for me or anyone to believe that what you say is either good or right. It is just your perspective and as such your preference. It is like saying "I like cabbage." Just because you like something does not make it good. I don't like cabbage. Does my dislike over-ride your like? No, because you are confusing morality to preference. I don't k now how else to emphasize this point to you.

I do not require the bible to tell me what is right from what is wrong. If I did that, I would consider slavery OK, and the rape of my daughter to be OK as long as the rapist pays me some money and marries her. I would also consider that my children, should they dishonor me by talking back, be subject to death by stoning, and any woman, not being a virgin at the time of their marriage be subject to the same death. I would also consider that homosexuals, people who work during the sabbath, and people who wear clothing of mixed fabrics to be subject to death by stoning. Do you consider the bible a good source of morality as mentioned in the examples I provided? -UF

Again you do not understand the type of behaviour called 'slavery' as it applied and was accepted in ancient Near East cultures. It differs from the type of slavery that the Bible condemns, the exploitation of people that was suffered by the Israelites under the hands of the Egyptians. Some of the other distinctions have been explained to you in both my post and other posts on this forum.

My opinion that homosexual marriage as a good thing is based on the idea that marriage on the whole is a good thing. It represents a loving commitment of two consenting adults to each other to join their lives together in a union. This strengthens a society where its members are united not only to the society, but to each other as well. I have nothing substantial to back up this opinion. As I have said before, it is just an opinion, my opinion, and I do not expect you to accept or adopt it. -UF

The definition of marriage as a good thing has always been viewed in terms of a union between a male and female that I am aware of in most, if not all cultures. Now that definition is changing. The union between a man and woman in marriage was also seen as a safeguard for raising children. Marriage as a whole up until very recently was defined in the biblical sense of Genesis 2:24 with the chief purpose being that union that also symbolized first Israel's then the churches union with God as His bride. The union was a physical union and the other a spiritual union. As such it was meant to be kept pure. Purity meant it was not to be compromised with adultery or sexual immorality. The act of sodomy was/is considered sexually immoral.

You are luck that you live in a democracy and not under a dictator. In those societies one or a few determine what is 'right and wrong' for the majority. You have no say. Right is what the dictator makes it, and apparently right in your society is what some legislative branch of government, made up of men who are supposed to consider the will of the people, make it. -Me

I know I am lucky. I have had first hand experience of living in a military dictatorship, and I thank my parents every day that they had the wisdom and the means to escape that and immigrate (with me and my siblings) to the west. I do consider myself very fortunate to live in the USA where we have an elected legislature that make laws that are supposed to be representative of the will of their constituents. However, I think they have failed in the case of Proposition 8. -UF

Then I'm sure you know that not everything that is made law by a military dictator is good. You know that but you can't justify why this is so. On the other hand I know why Proposition 8 is wrong and I can justify it on the grounds that what God calls evil or wrong is just that.

<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

[PGA]

Regarding same-sex marriage, I think that many people, deep down know it is wrong just judging from their reactions when the act or behaviour is described. It is an unnatural function in an unnatural region of the body to go poking around in. It does not lead to the propagation of the 'species', the very thing that anyone who denies God would have to believe in as being beneficial for no progeny equals no species in a naturalistic framework. -Me

You are mistaken. I think quite the reverse. Deep down, I do not consider same-sex marriage as unnatural or repulsive. I have attended several same-sex marriage ceremonies, and I do not feel any different during those ceremonies than I do at opposite sex marriage ceremonies. However, rubber chicken and overcooked vegetables do not generally excite me. -UF

I am mistaken because you think so and because your thinking is based on your feelings and preference. If my feeling were based on the exact opposite feelings because of mere preference (which they are not - I have more than just preference that I judge morality on) then who is right? Are you always right?

Please tell me why you consider any part of the human body as unnatural? I find that statement rather strange. I consider that all parts of the human body as natural, in that they all exist in nature. Do you think homosexuals have different body parts than heterosexuals? -UF

Again, you are confusing categories. I do not thing the human body is unnatural or that our bodies are different. I consider certain acts such as sodomy unnatural and what people do as unnatural. Is sodomy natural? Is it natural to use something used to expel waste for pleasure? Does the act produce progeny? You see, even in a naturalistic world-view homosexual behaviour does not produce the desired results of evolution (if there were ever such a thing), the promotion of the species.

Not all marriages lead to children. If this were the case, societies would not allow old people to marry, or people who cannot conceive children for one reason or another, or people who do not want to have children. I pity the members of such a society with such laws. It certainly goes against the general principle of obstructing the pursuit of happiness, even if that pursuit does not impinge on others rights. -UF

Again, I would like to remind you that you confuse pleasure with happiness and what is right as whatever one wishes to make it rather than a right to do something as a privilege. If homosexuality is a right, then why isn't polygamy, or bestiality, or incest between two consenting adults or even between anyone who agrees with anyone else to do something, no matter what that may be? If someone decided to let someone else kill them, and they consented in writing then by your definition that should be a 'right' too.

In nature, homosexual behavior has been observed in other species. -UF

Is it the exception or the rule? Is it the norm or the aberration?

From the biblical mandate marriage is between a man and a woman resulting in offspring; a family.- Me

I have already provided ample examples above of why following the bible is a bad idea in determining what is right from what is wrong. -UF

I disagree. What you have done is provide your feelings and your preference on the matter and nothing more. You can't appeal to a standard that is binding on all people in all eras - the best case, because you have nothing to compare best to.

You misunderstand. It is not my definition of what is right and wrong that fluctuates. It is society's definition of what is right and wrong that fluctuates depending on which particular society and/or which era we are talking about. -UF

No, I don't believe I do misunderstand you. It is both your definition and your societies definition that you are basing your judgment on. The problem I have mentioned many times is that you have nothing concrete to compare right or wrong to because you don't have a solid basis for an ideal. Something that constantly shifts cannot determine right and wrong.

Morality is discovered, not invented.

This is easily observable. I provided the Loving v. Virginia US Supreme court case as an example of how the same society (USA) changed its views on what is right and what is wrong. Before 1967, some states viewed mixed race marriages as wrong, and had anti-miscegenation laws in the books to prevent such. In 1967, the US Supreme Court determined that these laws were unconstitutional and wrong. Don't you see the change? Don't you see the fluctuation?

In the Apartheid era in South Africa, there were many laws that limited the rights of blacks, as compared to the whites. Today, in South Africa, those laws have been stricken. Do you see the change? Do you see the fluctuation? -UF

I see the fluctuation and I agree based on God's standards that the right decision was made to allow mixed marriages. On what basis do you agree, someones preference?