Same Sex marriges Legilized!

[Lord Hlaalu]

If gay is right and should be alowed then why cant gay ppl not reproduce

Does this mean heterosexual couples in which one or the other or both of them are infertile also shouldn't be allowed?

 

and why was the human race created that way

 

Give me one shred of evidence the human race was created rather than evolved by happenstance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm hmmm, please, prove to me that God didn't 'create' the human race through evolution... (Or, if you prefer, prove that they had to evolve by chance and chance only.)

 

And not that I agree with papasmurf here, but what he was trying to say is that two average men or two average women cannot reproduce, while an average man and an average woman, together, can reproduce (excluding all instances of infertility, which could appear in anyone).

[Zmid]

Hmm hmmm, please, prove to me that God didn't 'create' the human race through evolution... (Or, if you prefer, prove that they had to evolve by chance and chance only.)

 

My point was that papasmurf's assertation that 'the human race was created that way' is in no way proven, and, in fact, there is very little, if any, evidence supporting this theory. There is far more evidence supporting the theory that humans evolved by happenstance, but the exact mechanism of how humans came about has never been totally proven, so if you claim that homosexuality is wrong because it's against the way that humans were created, you first have to prove that humans were actually created, otherwise your entire argument falls flat on it's face.

 

And not that I agree with papasmurf here, but what he was trying to say is that two average men or two average women cannot reproduce, while an average man and an average woman, together, can reproduce (excluding all instances of infertility, which could appear in anyone).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Papsmurf's argument was more or less 'couples shouldn't be allowed unless a child can come out of that couple'. I pointed out the flaw in his argument.

 

Secondly, in both heterosexual and homosexual couples, it is more about two people feeling attracted to each other and/or falling in love rather than it exclusively being about two people wanting to have a child, so the entire point about gay people being unable to naturally conceive a child is totally irrelevant.

[thranduill]

  Romans 1:27 "And likewise men, leaving the NATURAL use of a woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and recieving recompence of their error which was meet" You can't really expect me to believe that that is hard to understand due to "translation" can you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not to enter in a religious debate, but I just would like to write it in a different way:

"And likewise men,leaving the natural USE OF A WOMAN, burned...etc."

This way of thinking, (that you use a woman) seem to me to be a machist way of approaching the problem, or am I doing a mistake?

Did somebody never consider that the "Holy books" of monotheistic religions

have been written by men only? So, may be they offer mainly the male way

of approaching to the moral problems of life.

And I doubt that the approach of semitic sheperds to sexual behaviours could be very tolerant (having many sons and daughters at that time was very important,

for practical and political reasons...)

[Peregrine]

Hmm hmmm, please, prove to me that God didn't 'create' the human race through evolution... (Or, if you prefer, prove that they had to evolve by chance and chance only.)

 

Apparently you aren't familiar with the concept of proof, and the impossibility of proving a negative. As the one claiming that your god created the human race, and this fact is more important than the clear laws about separation of church and state, the burden of proof is on you.

And not that I agree with papasmurf here, but what he was trying to say is that two average men or two average women cannot reproduce, while an average man and an average woman, together, can reproduce (excluding all instances of infertility, which could appear in anyone).

 

And his point is completely irrelevant, as marriage and reproduction are separate issues. And two members of the same sex can adopt children and be just as much of a family as one man and one woman. His point is nothing more than justification for his own biases.

[KzinistZerg]

 

  Romans 1:27 "And likewise men, leaving the NATURAL use of a woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and recieving recompence of their error which was meet" You can't really expect me to believe that that is hard to understand due to "translation" can you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not to enter in a religious debate, but I just would like to write it in a different way:

"And likewise men,leaving the natural USE OF A WOMAN, burned...etc."

This way of thinking, (that you use a woman) seem to me to be a machist way of approaching the problem, or am I doing a mistake?

Did somebody never consider that the "Holy books" of monotheistic religions

have been written by men only? So, may be they offer mainly the male way

of approaching to the moral problems of life.

And I doubt that the approach of semitic sheperds to sexual behaviours could be very tolerant (having many sons and daughters at that time was very important,

for practical and political reasons...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No mistake- you are most definitely right. Calling upon the bible to be used as evidence is not really that good because A- it was written thousands of years ago which means 1) it's probably inaccurate due to the change in times, ethics, and religions and 2) inaccurate due to the various translations. Do you have a copy of the Original bible with you & can you read the language it was written in?

And B- it’s not good because it was entirely the male point of view- women are apparently the worst thing ever to happen to humanity, if you go by their viewpoint. "Oh, what, women were around..." you say. Not in monasteries- and it was illegal, immoral, and wrong for women to know how to read. (But then again, most people were illiterate anyway. It was only WRONG for women then. men could learn if they had the time. Which most didn’t.)

 

Before you begin to think I’m agreeing with the ideas (because tone of voice, expressions, and gestures aren't included in typing) - I’m not. I won't go into philosophical detail, but the bible is not at all a reliable resource to quote from.

[Switch]

I would have something to say here but this is starting to fall into the whole "religious debate" territory, so let's steer this in another direction, shall we? ;)

[Dark0ne]

Agreed. You can't quote from the bible, so please DON'T. End of discussion.

[Lord Hlaalu]

Hmm hmmm, please, prove to me that God didn't 'create' the human race through evolution... (Or, if you prefer, prove that they had to evolve by chance and chance only.)

 

Apparently you aren't familiar with the concept of proof, and the impossibility of proving a negative. As the one claiming that your god created the human race, and this fact is more important than the clear laws about separation of church and state, the burden of proof is on you.

And not that I agree with papasmurf here, but what he was trying to say is that two average men or two average women cannot reproduce, while an average man and an average woman, together, can reproduce (excluding all instances of infertility, which could appear in anyone).

 

And his point is completely irrelevant, as marriage and reproduction are separate issues. And two members of the same sex can adopt children and be just as much of a family as one man and one woman. His point is nothing more than justification for his own biases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Peregrine, please, show me the place where I stated that God created humans, and that that fact should outweigh the law...

White Wolf was the one claiming that we evolved by chance. I never claimed anything. I only challenged him to prove that God didnt' create us through evolution.

 

2) The bible states that countless other things are just as sinful, eating the wrong fish for example. If it was truly about following god's orders, and not just using the bible to justify peoples' biases, we would see them making an issue over all those other things. But why don't they? Why don't we see demands to ban fish as well, since god hates them just as much as homosexuality?

Haven't read our Bible have we? The Old Testament says that eating fish on the eve before the Sabbath is sinful. But this is irrelevant because Christians don't follow the OT, they follow the New Testament only. If they followed the OT, they would be Jewish.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Lord Hlaalu, please respect the ban on religious debates on these forums.

 

http://forum.gamingsource.net/index.php?showtopic=13193

[Peregrine]

Peregrine, please, show me the place where I stated that God created humans, and that that fact should outweigh the law...

White Wolf was the one claiming that we evolved by chance. I never claimed anything. I only challenged him to prove that God didnt' create us through evolution.

 

1) You were coming to the defense of someone who claimed exactly that. If that was not your intent, then sorry for the misunderstanding, but you should've been more careful with what you quoted.

 

2) If you aren't claiming it is relevant to this thread (using a religious argument), then it doesn't belong here.

 

3) The point about proving a negative still remains true. It is not possible in any way to do so.

 

Haven't read our Bible have we? The Old Testament says that eating fish on the eve before the Sabbath is sinful. But this is irrelevant because Christians don't follow the OT, they follow the New Testament only. If they followed the OT, they would be Jewish.

 

The exact interpretation is irrelevant (as well as banned on this forum), so I won't correct you here. My point was that many of the strongest defenders of the "traditional" definition of marriage are focusing on sexuality above all other things. The fact that they pick this one sin to make an issue about is proof that it's really just an excuse for the "eww, disgusting" reaction, and the narrow-minded insistence that everyone else believe the same, that they already had.

 

Like it or not, right next to those anti-homosexuality laws are laws judging plenty of other things as sinful. But where are the calls to ban those? Where is the outrage and demand to ignore separation of church and state in those cases? Could the real motivation be something entirely different from the claimed one perhaps? Could it be that they know they're really no better than racists, but they lack the courage to admit it and hide behind their religion?