Mage's philosoraptor: Read Paradise Lost. It has the answers you seek. Unless you don't actually want answers and instead want to be sarcastic. Which is fine.
Regarding women as companions for men: Read The Second Sex. It has the truth you need. Unless there's only one book you look to.
I'm sorry I couldn't answer more, but I have to go. I think you can understand how hard it is for one person(me) to debate several, especially considering the sheer number of posts I still have to respond to here.
Well personally, I'd suggest you simply address the Greatest Hits, then. In particular, you have not addressed the point raised about other sins in Leviticus.
Why is gay marriage bad but eating shellfish okay? Why don't you have equal problems with people shaving and eating pork and wearing blended fibers? Those are forbidden too. Don't waste everyone's time demanding citations on those sins, because if you read the book, it would be pretty hard to miss the part where they're forbidden. Why do you care about one thing and not the other? What dictates the arbitrary enforcement?
The bible premit to shave. Exept last mounth, in which you dont.
This is what i like about christianity. The "iety" choose what rules to follow. Mmm, kosher is quite tough? Delete. Cutting the friend down there? Hell no. Celebrating the holidays? Lets make others so the pagan would accepet to join in. Gays? No! The bible say so!
And btw, the rule for kosher food demand a speicel way of buchering (which mean no hunting), only sea creaters with scales. Some birds are forbidens. Only animals with some rules. No milk and meat. How many did you acomplished so far?
The purpose of this debate is not defending the existance of God, nor the validity of the Bible.
It's relevant to the conversation. Your god, according to you, created everything with forethought as to how it would all turn out; thus he is ultimately responsible for everything, including the things which he later says he finds abominable. If god is omniscient and created the entire universe, than he is wholly and completely responsible for homosexuals existing and being homosexual, and so he is condemning something that he knowingly caused and could stop at any point with the greatest of ease.
It's relevant to the conversation. Your god, according to you, created everything with forethought as to how it would all turn out; thus he is ultimately responsible for everything, including the things which he later says he finds abominable. If god is omniscient and created the entire universe, than he is wholly and completely responsible for homosexuals existing and being homosexual, and so he is condemning something that he knowingly caused and could stop at any point with the greatest of ease.
I just have time to say, I already went over why and how God would have made homosexuals. They are no more condemned than you or I. They simply have a different struggle. They have the choice not to let their sin take over them, or to ignore God's laws and sin.
Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong. I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong. You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law? I can't. To try to would be pointless, because if you don't even believe in the existance of the Lawmaker, how can I convince you to follow his laws?
By providing proof of the bible's validity, but that's another topic.
I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong.
This reminds me of fanverse arguments. No matter how much you argue and prove it to one another, it (should) have no reflection in law because it is fictional. The entire debate on we're having on whether the bible says homosexuality is wrong or not is irrelevant to marriage between homosexuals, as much as it's irrelevant whether Thor could beat Hulk.
I just have time to say, I already went over why and how God would have made homosexuals. They are no more condemned than you or I. They simply have a different struggle. They have the choice not to let their sin take over them, or to ignore God's laws and sin.
But you see, according that that logic, your god created the universe along with all of his moral laws knowing ahead of time exactly every transgression of them that would occur, as well as how he could have created the universe so that there would be no transgressions of his moral law- yet apparently, according to your position, he intentionally created the universe intentionally in a way so as to generate people that would proceed to rebel against him, which he than punished them for doing.
You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law? I can't. To try to would be pointless, because if you don't even believe in the existance of the Lawmaker, how can I convince you to follow his laws?
First off, can you even define god so as A) to distinguish him from every other god and interpretation of him that you disagree with. B) to demonstrate that he exists in reality outside the minds of his believers. C) to distinguish him from non-sentient natural forces.
Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong. I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong.
I've already temporarily suspended reality to accept scriptural arguments. I already pointed out that to accept one law of Lev because "God said so" is to accept all of them. You're picking and choosing from the same set of laws. Please address that. Many Christians chuck nearly all of them. When I was a JW, the reasoning was that those were part of the Mosaic laws, recited through Moses specifically to the Jews, not God's direct laws which were meant for everyone. There are biblical points differentiating them. When Jesus came, only the laws directly spoken by God remained in effect. So I wouldn't have accepted laws in Lev as a good reason anyway. Got anything else?
I just have time to say, I already went over why and how God would have made homosexuals. They are no more condemned than you or I. They simply have a different struggle. They have the choice not to let their sin take over them, or to ignore God's laws and sin.
Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong. I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong. You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law? I can't. To try to would be pointless, because if you don't even believe in the existance of the Lawmaker, how can I convince you to follow his laws?
Fair enough.
Just understand that the reason you oppose homosexuality is based not off of logic, but merely obedience to your god.
Since there is supposed to be separation of church and state, gay marriage should be recognized since the basis for keeping homosexuality outlawed is rooted in religion, not logic.
Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong.
If your argument was actually reasonable, yes you could.
You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law?
By demonstrating this God exists and is worth following to such a degree.
Mage's philosoraptor: Read Paradise Lost. It has the answers you seek. Unless you don't actually want answers and instead want to be sarcastic. Which is fine.
Well it was mostly sarcastic but if there is an actual answer that we can scrutinize would love to hear it.
I'd like to hear everyones opinions about equal marriage right between gay and straight people.
I say let people be happy. If homosexual partners wish to marry then that's fine by me. That being said....
Marriage as we know it is a religious ceremony, and that's where much of the debate begins. If we want to keep it that way then the legal status, benefits, and recognition need to be eliminated and let the religious folk keep their traditions.
If we are going to continue recognizing marriage as a legal status, along with the benefits, recognition, and responsibilities that go along with that then we, by law (at least in the US and several other western nations) must allow homosexual marriage. To deny it is discrimination on grounds of sexual preference, and that is illegal in many places.
Religious marriage should just be a sort of "addon" to civil marriage for the members of any religious community, community in which such a marriage status will be valid and nowhere else. Civil marriage should anyway allow homosexual couples (as you said Walker) and be a base/requisite even for religious ones.
A more interesting topic is, should religious institutions be bound by law to recognize all sort of couples, or can they go on distributing their marriage titles to a select few. That would be an interesting debate for all homosexual members of such communities, like gay catholics or such.
