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

[SteveII]

Referring to homosexual relationships as a sin is regressive and bigoted and hate by default.  Nothing needs to be made up it's your position and it's vile.

Emphasis mine.  I cannot see such views as anything but hatred.

The belief is:

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Getting 'hatred' from that takes a special kind of anger.

[Mister Agenda]

Seems that allowing homosexual marriage follows from 1, 2, and 3.

[Divinity]

My god says that you are evil because you worship a bigotted god. And my god is stronger than your god, so go fuck off already you little shit maggot.

Christians like you provide ZERO value to society, and waste valuable oxygen.

[SteveII]

Where do you get that? You couldn't be more wrong. Marriage predates government in every culture--ever. 


Again, you are making things up. Yes, in certain cultures homosexual relationships was acceptable--but I don't recall that it was ever called marriage. Every culture in the world, ever, had the concept of marriage. 


Yes, it very much a fact that it is a change in definition. 

This is very interesting. Post after post after post, you atheists continue to prove that you don't understand the main Christian position while trying to prove that you do!! Your angry echo chamber seems to be impenetrable.

Oh, we understand the Christian position. We understand that religion wants to co-opt the concept of marriage to themselves. But marriage is simply a way to form family bonds in the context of a society. Today, that is reflected in government sanction. Those bonds can be between people no matter what their gender and *have* been in many cultures. YOU want to make it specifically a religious thing based on being able to reproduce (and then make exceptions for opposite gendered couples that cannot or choose not to).

Whatever form of marriage existed before governments was simply a societal recognition of the bond between the individuals. Such bonds do NOT require opposite genders.

Whoa! "Religion wants to co-opt the concept of marriage to themselves"? You have your head in the sand. Marriage has been going on, in EVERY religious or non-religious culture for 10,000+ years defined as one thing. Now in a matter of a decade, a minority of people on the planet want to redefine it. There is no spin you can put on this. Your "religion" and "reproduce" charges are just huge straw men. Your "government" thing is total nonsense.

---

Seems that allowing homosexual marriage follows from 1, 2, and 3.

Well, except for #1.

[Mister Agenda]

It's a matter of historical fact that not every religion forbade same sex marriage.

[RoadRunner79]

There is certainly those who are hateful and it should be condemned!  However that you cannot see anything else, is your own shallow short coming.   If you can’t think that some thing is wrong without hating the person, I think that is your issue, and you shouldn’t push it on others. As I said, it explains a lot. I’m starting to question if some here understand what love and hate even is?

OK, exactly what do you think it wrong with being gay? If you take any of your statements and apply them to the issue of miscegenation (sexual relations between races), would you have the same conclusions, or would you see them as bigoted?

So, for example, if someone claims, based on the BIble (re: Ham and his descendants), that marriage between races is immoral, would you see that as bigoted or not?

BTW, I am on the side of it being bigoted.

I think that you are going to have a difficult time trying to justify miscegenation using the bible or Christian tradition. However, lets say that there is another religion for arguments sake, which has a long and standing tradition that it is wrong to mix races. I view bigotry

Merriam Webster gives the following definition of Bigot:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So what we see here, is hatred and intolerance towards a group of people. So the question would be, does this person show these things? Are there reasons apart from their disagreement on interracial marriage to think that it stems from hating black people (or white or whatever the case may be)? Even on intolerance, I'm going to view this as more than saying that they think something is wrong. Otherwise, we can't even be intolerant to intolerance. Tolerance doesn't mean that we must agree, and even implies that we do not.

When you talk about the reasons that something is wrong, I think this is part of a larger conversation. Why is anything wrong? Is there anything that is objectively wrong (moral realism). Or is it all just subjective (opinion or something else). This could be a case, where those who say it is subjective don't act like it is subjective. How would you reason that murder is wrong, apart from a pragmatic point of view, which is really just arguing for convenience (not that it is really wrong). You need to start with some objective basis, with which to reason that something is wrong, and not just that you dislike it (or pragmatism or whatever). I think that we all have a sense of right and wrong, which is founded in God. Not that you need to believe in God to necessarily know right and wrong, or that you need to believe and follow the Bible. It's more basic and ingrained than that. So in some sense, I think that it is the wrong question for reasons why it is wrong, because for a particular situation we may reason for why something is wrong or not, but we are reasoning from properly basic moral principles. And of course if morality is subjective, then it's the wrong question to ask, because morals are relative and based on the subject, and you are acting like they are objective.

[SteveII]

It's a matter of historical fact that not every religion forbade same sex marriage.

Was it called marriage? How obscure is the reference? 

Listen, even if you do find an obscure example, the main point I am making is that Christians believe that God ordained marriage as we have viewed it for all of history. You have to have your head up your ass to think that 5 people on the supreme court can redefine such a word/concept--against the majority view of the population--and there would not be any objections.

[Angrboda]

OK, exactly what do you think it wrong with being gay? If you take any of your statements and apply them to the issue of miscegenation (sexual relations between races), would you have the same conclusions, or would you see them as bigoted?

So, for example, if someone claims, based on the BIble (re: Ham and his descendants), that marriage between races is immoral, would you see that as bigoted or not?

BTW, I am on the side of it being bigoted.

I think that you are going to have a difficult time trying to justify miscegenation using the bible or Christian tradition.

In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other. In the 1960s, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

After the Supreme Court invalidated bans on interracial marriage, Bob Jones University still argued that the freedom of religion provisions of the First Amendment allowed it to ban interracial dating and keep its tax-exempt status while doing so, because its “rule against interracial dating is a matter of religious belief and practice.” And after the Supreme Court rejected this argument, in 1983, the university continued to ban interracial dating until the year 2000.

Deja Vu All Over Again: Religious Objections To Interracial Marriage And Same-Sex Marriage

[Mister Agenda]

It's a matter of historical fact that not every religion forbade same sex marriage.

Was it called marriage? How obscure is the reference? 

Listen, even if you do find an obscure example, the main point I am making is that Christians believe that God ordained marriage as we have viewed it for all of history. You have to have your head up your ass to think that 5 people on the supreme court can redefine such a word/concept--against the majority view of the population--and there would not be any objections.

What does it matter what it was called if it was a communal recognition of rightful union of two people? What do you suppose the word for that would be translated as?

[SteveII]

Was it called marriage? How obscure is the reference? 

Listen, even if you do find an obscure example, the main point I am making is that Christians believe that God ordained marriage as we have viewed it for all of history. You have to have your head up your ass to think that 5 people on the supreme court can redefine such a word/concept--against the majority view of the population--and there would not be any objections.

What does it matter what it was called if it was a communal recognition of rightful union of two people? What do you suppose the word for that would be translated as?

Even back in whatever culture you might find a mention, the concept that it was different would still be clear. You cannot argue that traditional marriage was not one of the primary pillars of every culture. There is no argument that could be made that the few cultures that allowed open same-sex relationships viewed them on par with traditional marriage within the fabric of their society.