"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Chad32]

Just about the entire evangelical base. The people who actually made it illegal in the US. The people fighting against the supreme court's recent decision to make it legal. Pick a group, assuming it's not all just one group. And if no one ever made laws against it, or planned to, or harrased people for doing it, then whether or not it's immoral is kind of a moot point.

More mischaracterizations. The "evangelical base" objects to redefining marriage. You edited out that part of my response. You can't possibly discuss this issue without understanding the other side's position. Again: can you understand their objection to that given their belief system?

I already described the basic objection to homosexuality. That's all theists really have. Gays don't make babies, and their book says it's wrong. There is not compelling objection.

[vorlon13]

We eat life too . . . .

[Angrboda]

It would help the case of religious people if they could make a rational argument for the immorality of gay sex. But they can't do that. That's why it's bigoted.

There should at least be an attempt to correctly characterize the other side's position in a civil discussion.

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.

Steve, could you provide me with the verses where God ordained that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Thanks in advance.

[Joods]

I hate to burst your bubble there, Steve, but marriage and religion are not exclusive to one another. The NAI had marriage ceremonies long before the white man showed up. They didn't even know the Abrahamic god existed until the pilgrims came here. Furthermore, they married any two people who loved one another - not just man and woman. So your first statement is false. 2-5 are merely the opinions of your religion.

The bubble is intact. I was clearly replying to and describing a Christian belief. #1 is a perfect characterization of that belief.

There wasn't anything in what you said that specifically said it was a "Christian" belief.

[SteveII]

More mischaracterizations. The "evangelical base" objects to redefining marriage. You edited out that part of my response. You can't possibly discuss this issue without understanding the other side's position. Again: can you understand their objection to that given their belief system?

I already described the basic objection to homosexuality. That's all theists really have. Gays don't make babies, and their book says it's wrong. There is not compelling objection.

So, does "not compelling objections" mean the beliefs are baseless? unreasoned? homophobic? bigoted? No. That's what your side of this issue does: mischaracterize and then bash the straw man with over-the-top labels. They somehow feel that if they understand the other side's position, then they have to admit something that they don't want to admit--namely that Christians beliefs are not inherently baseless, unreasonable, homophobic or bigoted. 

Also, the opinion of Christians =/= Christian beliefs derived from systematic theology and the development of sound doctrine.

[polymath257]

OK, so you aren't scared of homosexuality, you are bigoted against it.

No;   If you mean that I think that homosexual activity is a sin and immoral.   I don't think that disagreement or thinking that something is wrong, means that you are intolerant.  When you loosen the definition that much, then you are a bigot as well.  

I think it's poor polemics to stretch the definition of emotionally charged words, and then go on to equivocating them afterwards.

I disagree. If you think interracial marriage is wrong, you are a bigot. If you think gay marriage is wrong, you are also a bigot.

The words are emotionally charged because they *should* be. We should condemn the sort of bigotry that has lasted way too long against gays.

[SteveII]

There should at least be an attempt to correctly characterize the other side's position in a civil discussion.

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.

Steve, could you provide me with the verses where God ordained that marriage was only between a man and a woman.  Thanks in advance.

Genesis 2:20-24 ESV
The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Mark 10:2-9
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,[a] 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The "no ambiguity" comes from the 1000 other verses that refer to marriage, the marriage bond/covenant, the Israelite laws governing marriage, the complimentary nature of marriage, etc. There is no indication anywhere that God's definition of marriage was less than exactly prescribed between a man and a woman. 

More reading...https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family

[polymath257]

I already described the basic objection to homosexuality. That's all theists really have. Gays don't make babies, and their book says it's wrong. There is not compelling objection.

So, does "not compelling objections" mean the beliefs are baseless? unreasoned? homophobic? bigoted? No. That's what your side of this issue does: mischaracterize and then bash the straw man with over-the-top labels. They somehow feel that if they understand the other side's position, then they have to admit something that they don't want to admit--namely that Christians beliefs are not inherently baseless, unreasonable, homophobic or bigoted. 

Also, the opinion of Christians =/= Christian beliefs derived from systematic theology and the development of sound doctrine.

Yes, actually, it does mean that it is unreasoned and bigoted. If your religion says that it is wrong for two men to love each other and be sexual or two women to love each other and be sexual, then it is your religion that is wrong. it really is that simple.

---

Steve, could you provide me with the verses where God ordained that marriage was only between a man and a woman.  Thanks in advance.

Genesis 2:20-24 ESV
The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Mark 10:2-9
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,[a] 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The "no ambiguity" comes from the 1000 other verses that refer to marriage, the marriage bond/covenant, the Israelite laws governing marriage, the complimentary nature of marriage, etc. There is no indication anywhere that God's definition of marriage was less than exactly prescribed between a man and a woman. 

More reading...https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family

First, I agree that the Bible is quite explicit in its denigration of homosexuality. And that is one of the many, many *moral* reasons to reject the Bible.

[RoadRunner79]

It would help the case of religious people if they could make a rational argument for the immorality of gay sex. But they can't do that. That's why it's bigoted.

I don't think that you rationalize to morality.   You may have to rationalize from moral principles for something which is a little different.  But I don't think that you get to those principles through logic.  How do you rationalize that it is wrong to kill others.   At best you may take a pragmatic approach, but a pragmatic approach, but being pragmatical doesn't necessarily make it moral or immoral.  Otherwise your not saying that it is right or wrong, but efficient.  As well, the question doesn't even make sense in a subjective view of morality.

[polymath257]

It would help the case of religious people if they could make a rational argument for the immorality of gay sex. But they can't do that. That's why it's bigoted.

I don't think that you rationalize to morality.   You may have to rationalize from moral principles for something which is a little different.  But I don't think that you get to those principles through logic.  How do you rationalize that it is wrong to kill others.   At best you may take a pragmatic approach, but a pragmatic approach, but being pragmatical doesn't necessarily make it moral or immoral.  Otherwise your not saying that it is right or wrong, but efficient.  As well, the question doesn't even make sense in a subjective view of morality.

At a certain level, I agree. Logic alone doesn't say anything about morality. Nor does it say anything about hte other aspects of the real world. So, to discover things about the real world, you have to accept the uncertainty that solipsism could be the reality and go from our sensory data and scientific reasoning to see how the universe works. In the same way, for morality, we have to accept that compassion is the fundamental morality.