An Appeal to Christians on Homosexuality

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by XplanetX

 

If that is what you think the natural proclivity of everyone is, if gay marriage was endorsed, then that's um, pretty amuzing!

Easy tiger.

Not everyone.

I have been quite general in my approach, not all homosexuals would push a society towards a Sodom and Gomorah like scenario. A society that keeps changing laws to accomodate them as a whole would certainly go in that direction. After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted. The process is a slow and steady decline. First the age of consent will be lowered, say to the age of '15', then eventually '14'. It is a slippery slope and one that should be avoided.

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]

What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.

I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.

You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.

(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]

What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.

I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.

You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.

(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).

Hello Bogomil.

If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]

What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.

I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.

You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.

(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).

Hello Bogomil.

If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.

A sensible answer, and I agree with you, that many social models have demonstrated less than 'decent' attitudes (based on various self-proclaimed 'absolutes').

But that is however not the point until you present an overall and generally acceptable reference-frame for these claims of yours, which I responded to. Basically you just presented something 'bad' (according to contemporary general standards), and then without further ado you continued to imply, that the homophobia of your 'god' is the 'answer'~solution for this 'bad'.

You just forgot to mention the missing link in this chain of 'reasoning'.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]

What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.

I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.

You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.

(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).

Hello Bogomil.

If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.

A sensible answer, and I agree with you, that many social models have demonstrated less than 'decent' attitudes (based on various self-proclaimed 'absolutes').

But that is however not the point until you present an overall and generally acceptable reference-frame for these claims of yours, which I responded to. Basically you just presented something 'bad' (according to contemporary general standards), and then without further ado you continued to imply, that the homophobia of your 'god' is the 'answer'~solution for this 'bad'.

You just forgot to mention the missing link in this chain of 'reasoning'.

It is starting to get late here, I will continue this discourse tomorrow.

Goodnight alligator.

reply to post by XplanetX

The point is that it is a slippery slope. If you promote homosexuality through the state government as a right for others then you are condoning the behaviour. You cannot call yourself a christian and be diplomatic about this issue.

that isn't true at all. i recognize that people have the god-given right to reject him and do their own thing. they'll reap the consequences, but it's their choice, so long as they aren't harming others.

when does god consider two people married? do you think he accepts polygamy and adultery? many of the more prominant people in the bible committed both, yet i'm sure you consider them in heaven. adultery is prohibited in the ten commandments, yet two homosexuals obtaining a marriage certificate isn't. david, solomon, and all the others went to heaven, but you think i'm not a christian for supporting god-given free will?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


integrity, it all comes down to integrity...

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by XplanetX

 

The point is that it is a slippery slope. If you promote homosexuality through the state government as a right for others then you are condoning the behaviour. You cannot call yourself a christian and be diplomatic about this issue.

that isn't true at all. i recognize that people have the god-given right to reject him and do their own thing. they'll reap the consequences, but it's their choice, so long as they aren't harming others.

when does god consider two people married? do you think he accepts polygamy and adultery? many of the more prominant people in the bible committed both, yet i'm sure you consider them in heaven. adultery is prohibited in the ten commandments, yet two homosexuals obtaining a marriage certificate isn't. david, solomon, and all the others went to heaven, but you think i'm not a christian for supporting god-given free will?

The following is PURELY FICTIONAL, but I want to make a point.

I can see Jesus in the voting booth right now...

"This political candidate is going to promote the marriage of homosexuals, yes that is just a dandy idea. He has my vote! I hope the children that grow up in a society with this new law are not swayed by marriage for homosexuals as an acceptable practice for christians. Since the people have free will, I wish there was also a candidate that would allow for a new law that reduces the age of sexual consent to 15, there are so many teenagers of that age that have sex anyway. Why have a law to prevent it?"

And so the slippery slope begins.


An appropriate scripture...

MT 18:5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

MT 18:7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.



I do not vote for these reasons, any man made government system is polluted by the world.

I look forward to and long for the following event taking place:


REV 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:

"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,
and he will reign for ever and ever."

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]

What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.

I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.

You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.

(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).

Hello Bogomil.

If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.

A sensible answer, and I agree with you, that many social models have demonstrated less than 'decent' attitudes (based on various self-proclaimed 'absolutes').

But that is however not the point until you present an overall and generally acceptable reference-frame for these claims of yours, which I responded to. Basically you just presented something 'bad' (according to contemporary general standards), and then without further ado you continued to imply, that the homophobia of your 'god' is the 'answer'~solution for this 'bad'.

You just forgot to mention the missing link in this chain of 'reasoning'.

There is only an implied 'missing link' in my chain of reasoning because I am communicating with another person that claims to be a christian. I would not bother trying to make the same point with a non-believer as there would be very little common ground on this issue.


Here is something to consider from a biological perspective:

If homosexuality did not exist then life would carry on, if heterosexuality did not exist then the human race would be extinct within 125 years (give or take).

reply to post by XplanetX


I'm loosing sight of the basis of your argument is, could you please refresh? Is it the whole "slippery slope" thing? If so, what exactly is this precedent that you speek of? I very much want to understand what your reasoning is since nobody has been able to successfully counter your argument.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by XplanetX

 

I'm loosing sight of the basis of your argument is, could you please refresh? Is it the whole "slippery slope" thing? If so, what exactly is this precedent that you speek of? I very much want to understand what your reasoning is since nobody has been able to successfully counter your argument.

Take a look at some of the more ancient cultures to get an idea of what were acceptable practices so that you can understand why same sex marriage has the potential of leading to more rampant and blatant paedophilia.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The culture within Sodom and Gomorah is a great example of a society that had completely lost their moral compass. Under the guise of being more tolerant, societies can often introduce new laws or practices that seem harmless at first but then eventually degenerate into something more sinister.

I will endeavour to dig up some more material for you if you are interested.

reply to post by XplanetX


I’m still going to say unprecedented. The examples that you gave listed the age of twelve as the legal age of consent for any sexual act, if you read further into Greek marriage laws, you will see that this was the age of consent for heterosexual marriage and that there was no homosexual marriage even in ancient Greece. It has been quite common up until the last century or so for the age of maturity to be child bearing age which is around the age of twelve.

So your example contradicts your point and further validates mine as even the ancient Greeks had a set age of consent (low as it may have been) and enforced those laws. Pedophilia will never be acceptable in America or any other developed country in the world, and if it does come to be, my guess is that you will have much bigger problems to worry about than gay marriage.

Now, I have a few points to make since you probably didn’t read my thread.

If you think of the real issue that is on the line here, it is the gays not being able to form a legal domestic partnership agreement which is what gives spouses the ability to act as a legal agent in their partners stead and gives something by which reference is made in case of divorce where property needs to be fairly divided. If the following are removed from the equation, you are left with a civil rights dispute that shows blatant lack of integrity within our legal system:

Sex, since there are no effective laws legally prohibiting homosexual acts. So, in essence, the sex is being had within the law and that is not what is being disputed.

The religious aspect of marriage, since the government does not tell you where and how your marriage ceremony is to be held. Also, there is no law against same sex commitment ceremonies, religious or otherwise.

Morality, since the government will not stop you from doing something unless it directly and negatively impacts another party, regardless of the morality of the situation.

In order to pass laws objectively while at the same time keeping with our liberal and democratic fundamentals as a society, we have to consider the civil rights of those that we consider immoral if we are to have any integrity at all.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["After homosexuality, paedophilia will become accepted."]

What blatant non-sense, especially considering that YOUR self-proclaimed norms probably would 'define' the age of consent. It wouldn't be the first time in christian history.

I believe, that Ireland in recent historical time had (some version of christian-based) law, that daughters under 24 (or 30.... I don't recall) needed their father's permission to marry.

You are presenting another 'authority' perspective, as usual leading back to your constant effort of re-establishing the elitist values you promote.

(And NO, this isn't about 'anything goes', it's about your presenting 'anything goes' as the imagined opponent to your monopoly-claims. Yoy are shadow-boxing with a figment of your own fantasy for propagandistic purposes).

Hello Bogomil.

If what I am discussing has no precedent, then I would be inclined to agree that I am just making wild speculation. Unfortunately it is not without precedent.

A sensible answer, and I agree with you, that many social models have demonstrated less than 'decent' attitudes (based on various self-proclaimed 'absolutes').

But that is however not the point until you present an overall and generally acceptable reference-frame for these claims of yours, which I responded to. Basically you just presented something 'bad' (according to contemporary general standards), and then without further ado you continued to imply, that the homophobia of your 'god' is the 'answer'~solution for this 'bad'.

You just forgot to mention the missing link in this chain of 'reasoning'.

There is only an implied 'missing link' in my chain of reasoning because I am communicating with another person that claims to be a christian. I would not bother trying to make the same point with a non-believer as there would be very little common ground on this issue.


Here is something to consider from a biological perspective:

If homosexuality did not exist then life would carry on, if heterosexuality did not exist then the human race would be extinct within 125 years (give or take).

An excellent example of a fabricated black/white scenario, worthy of 'there is nothing in between'.

A very loose estimate on my part would lead to app. 5% of mankind being permanently homosexual. And as there are more than enough people on this planet already, the risk of mankind dying out through homosexuality is minimal.

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


You wrote:

["In order to pass laws objectively while at the same time keeping with our liberal and democratic fundamentals as a society, we have to consider the civil rights of those that we consider immoral if we are to have any integrity at all."]

Considering that liberal society is the BIG baaaaad for theist extremists (as you may have noticed trying to turn this into a pseudo-axiom by inventing scare stories), I don't believe you'll come across this way.

Now...theocrazy, that would be something. It's absolutely wonderful to live in such a system, if you belong to the right elite, that is.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by XplanetX

 

I’m still going to say unprecedented. The examples that you gave listed the age of twelve as the legal age of consent for any sexual act, if you read further into Greek marriage laws, you will see that this was the age of consent for heterosexual marriage and that there was no homosexual marriage even in ancient Greece. It has been quite common up until the last century or so for the age of maturity to be child bearing age which is around the age of twelve.

So your example contradicts your point and further validates mine as even the ancient Greeks had a set age of consent (low as it may have been) and enforced those laws. Pedophilia will never be acceptable in America or any other developed country in the world, and if it does come to be, my guess is that you will have much bigger problems to worry about than gay marriage.

Now, I have a few points to make since you probably didn’t read my thread.

If you think of the real issue that is on the line here, it is the gays not being able to form a legal domestic partnership agreement which is what gives spouses the ability to act as a legal agent in their partners stead and gives something by which reference is made in case of divorce where property needs to be fairly divided. If the following are removed from the equation, you are left with a civil rights dispute that shows blatant lack of integrity within our legal system:

Sex, since there are no effective laws legally prohibiting homosexual acts. So, in essence, the sex is being had within the law and that is not what is being disputed.

The religious aspect of marriage, since the government does not tell you where and how your marriage ceremony is to be held. Also, there is no law against same sex commitment ceremonies, religious or otherwise.

Morality, since the government will not stop you from doing something unless it directly and negatively impacts another party, regardless of the morality of the situation.

In order to pass laws objectively while at the same time keeping with our liberal and democratic fundamentals as a society, we have to consider the civil rights of those that we consider immoral if we are to have any integrity at all.

I apologise, I do not have enough time to read everyone's material.

It is not about the 'marriage' itself or a formal certificate, it is about what is acceptable behaviour in society. In Ancient Greece it would appear that older men having sex with young boys was the norm and was not outlawed. In todays society many people are calling for same sex marriage to be accepted. Once this becomes an acceptable practice in society and younger children see it as an acceptable practice, I can guarantee that more men will be able to take advantage of young boys. The next phase will be a downgrading of the age of consent. We are already witnessing the increased sexualisation of children and all of this ties in with the moral decay of our society. It is not 'gay marriage' on it's own that will be responsible for the decay but rather a combination of factors. What is considered heinous today will be considered as acceptable practice tomorrow.

I consider this to be a very serious problem because children are very impressionable and are not really capable of true independance until they mature. I may come across as very black and white due to my beliefs in the teachings of Christ, I trust that he knows better. Jesus may not always explain in great detail in the scriptures the ramifications of certain sins but we have enough history behind ourselves to see the outcome of a society that indulges in certain practices.

For the record, I do not hate gay people and I am not homophobic. I have had a few friends in my past that were openly homosexual. One of them is a christian that repented but I am no longer in contact with him. He was a member of a church that I attended many years ago. He was very open about his struggles and he was someone that helped me become more open about my own sins.

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["Once this becomes an acceptable practice in society and younger children see it as an acceptable practice, I can guarantee that more men will be able to take advantage of young boys."]

How can you guarantee that? And if these young boys are of legal age, and there is no illegal prostitution involved, how can that be anybody else's business?

Quote: [" The next phase will be a downgrading of the age of consent."]

And exactly what is the 'proper' consent age.

Quote: ["We are already witnessing the increased sexualisation of children and all of this ties in with the moral decay of our society."]

Let's have sharia laws then...they are really effective; "Orrf with their heads".

Quote: ["It is not 'gay marriage' on it's own that will be responsible for the decay but rather a combination of factors. What is considered heinous today will be considered as acceptable practice tomorrow."]

Yes, individual freedom outside self-appointed authority is a terrible thing.

Quote: ["I may come across as very black and white due to my beliefs in the teachings of Christ, I trust that he knows better."]

The peculiar argument, that 'he knows better' certainly does come across as black/white.

Quote: ["Jesus may not always explain in great detail in the scriptures the ramifications of certain sins"]

But then you can fill out where it's needed.

Quote: ["but we have enough history behind ourselves to see the outcome of a society that indulges in certain practices."]

That's true. Amongst them all the theocracies.

Quote: ["For the record, I do not hate gay people and I am not homophobic."]

"I just follow orders".

Quote: ["One of them is a christian that repented but I am no longer in contact with him. He was a member of a church that I attended many years ago. He was very open about his struggles and he was someone that helped me become more open about my own sins."]

You may believe this makes you appear tolerant. Imo the impression is the opposite. Self-righteous 'sinner' values.

Originally posted by Viking9019
The whole point of marriage is for a man and woman who are religious and wish to put their relationship in the hands of god.This has nothing to do with freewill.

Marriage is now a Legal Government Document - - to protect rights and property of 2 consenting persons joining as one family - - - which Atheists have full benefit of.

You lose.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["Once this becomes an acceptable practice in society and younger children see it as an acceptable practice, I can guarantee that more men will be able to take advantage of young boys."]

How can you guarantee that? And if these young boys are of legal age, and there is no illegal prostitution involved, how can that be anybody else's business?

Quote: [" The next phase will be a downgrading of the age of consent."]

And exactly what is the 'proper' consent age.

Quote: ["We are already witnessing the increased sexualisation of children and all of this ties in with the moral decay of our society."]

Let's have sharia laws then...they are really effective; "Orrf with their heads".

Quote: ["It is not 'gay marriage' on it's own that will be responsible for the decay but rather a combination of factors. What is considered heinous today will be considered as acceptable practice tomorrow."]

Yes, individual freedom outside self-appointed authority is a terrible thing.

Quote: ["I may come across as very black and white due to my beliefs in the teachings of Christ, I trust that he knows better."]

The peculiar argument, that 'he knows better' certainly does come across as black/white.

Quote: ["Jesus may not always explain in great detail in the scriptures the ramifications of certain sins"]

But then you can fill out where it's needed.

Quote: ["but we have enough history behind ourselves to see the outcome of a society that indulges in certain practices."]

That's true. Amongst them all the theocracies.

Quote: ["For the record, I do not hate gay people and I am not homophobic."]

"I just follow orders".

Quote: ["One of them is a christian that repented but I am no longer in contact with him. He was a member of a church that I attended many years ago. He was very open about his struggles and he was someone that helped me become more open about my own sins."]

You may believe this makes you appear tolerant. Imo the impression is the opposite. Self-righteous 'sinner' values.

edit on 21-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition

You disect everything that I write and treat each sentence completely seperate from the overall theme of what I am writing and in some cases even out of context. I notice that you respond to a lot of other people on this forum using a less antagonistic approach. I obviously disturb you in some fashion and I also draw your attention, not that this is my intention but simply an observation. I could also disect everything that you write and use the same tactics but you are not that important. I do enjoy conversing with you and I don't want to ignore you but if you continue with this method of approach then my eyes may begin to glaze over what you are saying.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["Once this becomes an acceptable practice in society and younger children see it as an acceptable practice, I can guarantee that more men will be able to take advantage of young boys."]

How can you guarantee that? And if these young boys are of legal age, and there is no illegal prostitution involved, how can that be anybody else's business?

Quote: [" The next phase will be a downgrading of the age of consent."]

And exactly what is the 'proper' consent age.

Quote: ["We are already witnessing the increased sexualisation of children and all of this ties in with the moral decay of our society."]

Let's have sharia laws then...they are really effective; "Orrf with their heads".

Quote: ["It is not 'gay marriage' on it's own that will be responsible for the decay but rather a combination of factors. What is considered heinous today will be considered as acceptable practice tomorrow."]

Yes, individual freedom outside self-appointed authority is a terrible thing.

Quote: ["I may come across as very black and white due to my beliefs in the teachings of Christ, I trust that he knows better."]

The peculiar argument, that 'he knows better' certainly does come across as black/white.

Quote: ["Jesus may not always explain in great detail in the scriptures the ramifications of certain sins"]

But then you can fill out where it's needed.

Quote: ["but we have enough history behind ourselves to see the outcome of a society that indulges in certain practices."]

That's true. Amongst them all the theocracies.

Quote: ["For the record, I do not hate gay people and I am not homophobic."]

"I just follow orders".

Quote: ["One of them is a christian that repented but I am no longer in contact with him. He was a member of a church that I attended many years ago. He was very open about his struggles and he was someone that helped me become more open about my own sins."]

You may believe this makes you appear tolerant. Imo the impression is the opposite. Self-righteous 'sinner' values.

edit on 21-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition

You disect everything that I write and treat each sentence completely seperate from the overall theme of what I am writing and in some cases even out of context. I notice that you respond to a lot of other people on this forum using a less antagonistic approach. I obviously disturb you in some fashion and I also draw your attention, not that this is my intention but simply an observation. I could also disect everything that you write and use the same tactics but you are not that important. I do enjoy conversing with you and I don't want to ignore you but if you continue with this method of approach then my eyes may begin to glaze over what you are saying.

edit on 21-9-2011 by XplanetX because: spelling error

So you mean, that there exists a truth/reality-seeking method, where several individual claims/postulates/semanticisms of very questionable validity can be knitted together in one higher rational unity.

In rational procedure EACH step/aspect must be valid BEFORE it's included in a reasoning-chain.

A predetermined answer doesn't justify creating a later adaption of 'facts' to fit it with it. A classical christian favourite.

**********

As to any targeting on my part, this ofcourse depends on the intensity and quality (as I see it) in what I oppose. I adjust my responses according to that and actually get quite well along with several theists on this forum, because they manifest 'live-and-let-live' attitudes (which is one of my main criteria).

**********

Whatever approach you choose as a response to my comments is your decission.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

The concept of "holy matrimony" isn't a New Testament concept, that is, not a Christian sacrament. Marriage is in fact a civil union, for the purpose of establishing 'next of kin' for inheritance purposes. Also, for the purpose of implied 'power of attorney' for incapacitated people.

People who for any reason, including religious reasons, oppose same-sex marriage should not engage in same-sex marriage. Hey, that was easy.