Evidence for God from Science

And my point is that this isn't marriage according to the Natural law of heterosexual people. If someone is hardwired to be gay then such natural law doesn't accommodate thier condition... Anymore than such natural law applied to Adam's children who populated the earth via incest to begin with. Do you think marriage is defined between sister and brother and yet early biblical people did exactly that to start things off.

neo-x wrote:And my point is that this isn't marriage according to the Natural law of heterosexual people. If someone is hardwired to be gay then such natural law doesn't accommodate thier condition... Anymore than such natural law applied to Adam's children who populated the earth via incest to begin with. Do you think marriage is defined between sister and brother and yet early biblical people did exactly that to start things off.

Why is it not enough to allow them to be with whom they want? Why redefine marriage? If it's legal for a man to marry his sister, then that's not redefining marriage.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:And my point is that this isn't marriage according to the Natural law of heterosexual people. If someone is hardwired to be gay then such natural law doesn't accommodate thier condition... Anymore than such natural law applied to Adam's children who populated the earth via incest to begin with. Do you think marriage is defined between sister and brother and yet early biblical people did exactly that to start things off.

Why is it not enough to allow them to be with whom they want? Why redefine marriage? If it's legal for a man to marry his sister, then that's not redefining marriage.

Respectively:
1. Because it's wrong.

2. Because it would be necessary.

3. That does change what marriage is. That is why marriage in the law was changed and restricted. The definition changed.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:And my point is that this isn't marriage according to the Natural law of heterosexual people. If someone is hardwired to be gay then such natural law doesn't accommodate thier condition... Anymore than such natural law applied to Adam's children who populated the earth via incest to begin with. Do you think marriage is defined between sister and brother and yet early biblical people did exactly that to start things off.

Why is it not enough to allow them to be with whom they want? Why redefine marriage? If it's legal for a man to marry his sister, then that's not redefining marriage.

Respectively:
1. Because it's wrong.

2. Because it would be necessary.

3. That does change what marriage is. That is why marriage in the law was changed and restricted. The definition changed.

Why is it wrong?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:And my point is that this isn't marriage according to the Natural law of heterosexual people. If someone is hardwired to be gay then such natural law doesn't accommodate thier condition... Anymore than such natural law applied to Adam's children who populated the earth via incest to begin with. Do you think marriage is defined between sister and brother and yet early biblical people did exactly that to start things off.

Why is it not enough to allow them to be with whom they want? Why redefine marriage? If it's legal for a man to marry his sister, then that's not redefining marriage.

Respectively:
1. Because it's wrong.

2. Because it would be necessary.

3. That does change what marriage is. That is why marriage in the law was changed and restricted. The definition changed.

Why is it wrong?

1. Because we are not anyone to allow who they spend their lives with. Social norms aside, I don't wanna be a Christian who spends his time worrying how others live. Let's just focus on gospel first.

2.if its not a choice for them, then its unfair to them. Applying something that doesn't even consider their orientation doesn't help.

Give me reasons why its alright to stop them?

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:And my point is that this isn't marriage according to the Natural law of heterosexual people. If someone is hardwired to be gay then such natural law doesn't accommodate thier condition... Anymore than such natural law applied to Adam's children who populated the earth via incest to begin with. Do you think marriage is defined between sister and brother and yet early biblical people did exactly that to start things off.

Why is it not enough to allow them to be with whom they want? Why redefine marriage? If it's legal for a man to marry his sister, then that's not redefining marriage.

Respectively:
1. Because it's wrong.

2. Because it would be necessary.

3. That does change what marriage is. That is why marriage in the law was changed and restricted. The definition changed.

Why is it wrong?

1. Because we are not anyone to allow who they spend their lives with. Social norms aside, I don't wanna be a Christian who spends his time worrying how others live. Let's just focus on gospel first.

2.if its not a choice for them, then its unfair to them. Applying something that doesn't even consider their orientation doesn't help.

Neo, have you been reading anything I've been saying?

NOBODY IS TELLING ANYONE WHO THEY CAN OR CANNOT SPEND THEIR LIVES WITH!!!

Am I speaking greek? Reread my posts.

Yes, I am reading you fine. And it shows you haven't considered my posts to begin with.

You questioned and I have given you the answer. Point 2 must not have escaped you, did it?

And inherent right?
You've made a pretty bold claim. Please provide an argument.

Neo, I asked you this:

Why is it not enough to allow them to be with whom they want? Why redefine marriage? If it's legal for a man to marry his sister, then that's not redefining marriage.

You responded with this first:

1. Because we are not anyone to allow who they spend their lives with. Social norms aside, I don't wanna be a Christian who spends his time worrying how others live. Let's just focus on gospel first.

You said we are not anyone to allow who they spend their lives with.
My question asked why it wasn't enough to allow them to be together. By "being together", that includes lifetime being together if they choose.

I'm saying that nobody here is saying they can't be together.

And you reply by saying it's wrong if we tell them they can't be together, when nobody is saying they can't!

You questioned and I have given you the answer. Point 2 must not have escaped you, did it?

We haven't even gotten past 1yet.

Here's what it reminds me of.

On the topic of religious persecution, my Muslim colleague said, we do think you are equal to us, right, everything, we respect your rights... I asked can i be the president, he said, nops.

neo-x wrote:Here's what it reminds me of.

On the topic of religious persecution, my Muslim colleague said, we do think you are equal to us, right, everything, we respect your rights... I asked can i be the president, he said, nops.

What your argument reminds me of is this: my married friend wants to be a bachelor. I tell him he's married, it's not possible to be a married bachelor. And my friend says, "that's not fair! I want to be a married bachelor! I don't have equal rights!"

jlay wrote:And inherent right?
You've made a pretty bold claim. Please provide an argument.

None is required, it is self obvious. If you disagree just say so.

I think the problem is that Christians see marriage as what it is: Union before God of two souls, and the rest of the world sees what it is to them: a union between two people government recognizes and bestows benefits to. You don't have to have children to have these benefits and by gaining children, depending on your economic status, you can gain more benefits. Its a worldly symbol of union. In other religions, it doesn't mean anything close to what it actually means.

Stop fighting the definition of marriage. Stop telling people what they can't do, it's not our place, and it's their right given by God to live how they want.

However, we don't have to, and shouldn't have to lose our integrity of reality and promoting the truth. No, your marriage is not recognized by God, I recognize your worldly marriage and (if there's a religious ceremony) that a god that doesn't exist has blessed it. No, we will not marry you in our churches because it's wrong. Why? Not just because 'God said so'. People need to understand. Desiring a nature that goes beyond our 'intrinsic' nature is a perversion against who and what we are, and in effect upon God. It doesn't matter what that desire is. Sin is a deviation away from our nature and direction, the image of God. Who is God? God is a family, a Father, a Son and a Holy Helper. We get to understand God on a level no creation yet does by being Fathers and Sons and selfishly giving through Love for one another. God is goodness and as the images of God, we are called to be agape. Why do we create..? Out of love. Homosexual unions are perverting the image of God, just how yelling in anger at your co-worker is perverting the image of God, just how stealing, lying.. anything that deviates from goodness is a perversion.

So let them do as they will. Marriage is not a recognized union as Christians see it. And frankly, we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs on anyone including the government. It sort of reminds me of the times of Christ when the Jews were fighting the Romans. Jesus did not want them to fight and this world is timed.

Mallz wrote:I think the problem is that Christians see marriage as what it is: Union before God of two souls, and the rest of the world sees what it is to them: a union between two people government recognizes and bestows benefits to. You don't have to have children to have these benefits and by gaining children, depending on your economic status, you can gain more benefits. Its a worldly symbol of union. In other religions, it doesn't mean anything close to what it actually means.

Stop fighting the definition of marriage. Stop telling people what they can't do, it's not our place, and it's their right given by God to live how they want.

However, we don't have to, and shouldn't have to lose our integrity of reality and promoting the truth. No, your marriage is not recognized by God, I recognize your worldly marriage and (if there's a religious ceremony) that a god that doesn't exist has blessed it. No, we will not marry you in our churches because it's wrong. Why? Not just because 'God said so'. People need to understand. Desiring a nature that goes beyond our 'intrinsic' nature is a perversion against who and what we are, and in effect upon God. It doesn't matter what that desire is. Sin is a deviation away from our nature and direction, the image of God. Who is God? God is a family, a Father, a Son and a Holy Helper. We get to understand God on a level no creation yet does by being Fathers and Sons and selfishly giving through Love for one another. God is goodness and as the images of God, we are called to be agape. Why do we create..? Out of love. Homosexual unions are perverting the image of God, just how yelling in anger at your co-worker is perverting the image of God, just how stealing, lying.. anything that deviates from goodness is a perversion.

So let them do as they will. Marriage is not a recognized union as Christians see it. And frankly, we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs on anyone including the government. It sort of reminds me of the times of Christ when the Jews were fighting the Romans. Jesus did not want them to fight and this world is timed.

I totally agree with this.