Evidence for God from Science

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

We are way past that point. we are now contending with the issue in the church. That being the church recognizing and even endorsing unnatural marriage. And, if you don't, then prepared to be lambasted. I just don't think many see what is happening at the fringes and even moving to the core. That we are not simply being asked to tolerate gay marriage but are being forced to approve.
Further, what are the reasons for the state to endorse marriage? Because people are attracted to one another? No. Love? Nope. There are fundamental reasons for the state to endorse natural marriage. And by affirming and promoting gay marriage, it undermines those reasons.

neo-x wrote:

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.

That's not an answer. If something is inherent, then you ought to be able to provide more of a case than "it's obvious." The only thing an answer like this communicates is that you don't have an argument, but just an opinion.

People - ALL people - are hardwired for sin - that is what our sin nature is. We are BORN natural rebels and we typically want to get things OUR way, no matter what God has said to the contrary. The most important aspect of how we see things surrounding this issue SHOULD BE what God has to say about it. The rest is opinion. God said people sexually uniting with another of the same sex is a terrible sin. Period! And so it really comes down to whether one 1) actually believe what Scripture says about this matter; 2) Whether or not you believe the relevant passages are indeed from the Lord; 3) Whether you or not you think the relevant Scriptures about homosexuality and sexual sin are actually true; and 4) What your responses will be in view of your Scriptural perceptions and related beliefs.

To say one is hardwired because they seem compelled to this behavior or that could easily and conveniently be used to justify a whole smorgasbord of sins. And if one thinks that one's sexual preferences are innate and they were born that way, that the early and ongoing environment and home life of a person doesn't impact their eventual sexual preferences is totally ignorant. Look at the identical twin studies - people sharing identical genetics - and yet their is a low correlation of homosexuality in identical twins. But the correlation should be and obvious, very high percentage, and undeniable. But it's not!

And so if home environment and upbringing matters as to the outcome of their sexual preferences, and as those that are homosexual are FAR more likely to have depression, disease, addictions, shorter life spans - a huge amount of negative things, then I think it matters about what rights I, as a Christian in the U.S. (a democracy, supposedly), would vote for. I don't like the idea of homosexuals adopting, for one. I'm for not discriminating in their pay, right to work, housing, right to do whatever in private. But as for legal things that will give hem a major influence over young children and teens - no, these I don't think are a good idea. We can still vote our conscience and should. Of course, we are not a theocracy. And many homosexuals think that I should have to legally do many things that I don't agree with. Which is why they should have a vote as well. These are not easy things to work out societally. All I'm saying is that many studies show early, developmental environment to be an important factor of sexual preference outcome - which is why it's an important consideration.

Any counselor will tell you that a high percentage of homosexuals had a sad, dysfunctional relationship with the father. And often, young teens are very sexually confused. They can often gravitate toward whomever happens to show them kindness and acceptance. And if that kindness and acceptance comes from someone of the same gender who is also a practicing homosexual, that is a very powerful influence on a young, awkward and confused teen. You take a kid to a psychiatrist because you are worried about their budding same-sex tendencies, and the very first thing that doctor will validate for the child is that "your sexual orientation is natural and you should embrace it - as it's an important part of whom you are." And then they'll do their best to "re-educate" the "ignorant" if concerned parents. So, early home environment, close peers, family dynamics, medical community and societal reinforcement - all of these are extremely powerful societal influences. It is naive to believe otherwise.

Let's not forget that many are bi-sexual as well. And there are many pedophiles who will insist that their sexual attraction to young children is natural, healthy and good for both them and the child. A few will even say the same about a variety of animals - "what's the harm, it's not hurting anyone." Heterosexual adulterers and sex addicts (real or not) will say that they feel naturally drawn and compelled to act out their sexuality in such a way. And if there is no standard to how we act out our sexual lives (from God)l, then it's just a societal competition of opinions - and right or wrong, good, bad or ugly, the majority wins.

And as for the state legally recognizing ANY marriage - we'd probably ALL be better off if it no longer recognized ANY marriage - or any so-called "marriages."

jlay wrote:Wow, some of the responses show how much postmodern philosophy has affected Christian thought.

Saying the homosexuality is unnatural and improper to act out on is not restricting or impeding anyone's human rights.
This 'as long as no one gets hurt' mentality is about as shallow as one can think. The responses i see from Christians are more reflective of Maslow's self-actualization in the heirarchy of needs.
The other problem is that much of Christendom doesn't even understand how to present the argument. It's just comes acorss as some narrow mind fundie with homophobia. It's sad.

A Christian should be about all believers (and in a broader sense all people) fulfilling their God given potential. If a person bases their entire identity on their sexual attraction and what they do with their sex organs, then this aint happening. Period. End of story.

This has nothing to do with hurting or not hurting people, this has to do with secular people not believing the same as us, we should not expect them to conform to our sense of morality which is not accepted by secular society as law.

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.

Daniel wrote:
This has nothing to do with hurting or not hurting people, this has to do with secular people not believing the same as us, we should not expect them to conform to our sense of morality which is not accepted by secular society as law.

Are you willing to take that argument where it logically leads?

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
This has nothing to do with hurting or not hurting people, this has to do with secular people not believing the same as us, we should not expect them to conform to our sense of morality which is not accepted by secular society as law.

Are you willing to take that argument where it logically leads?

This argument only pertains to the marriage debate, all other issues would be argued on their merits, so I don't see it leading anywhere.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

jlay wrote:Wow, some of the responses show how much postmodern philosophy has affected Christian thought.

Saying the homosexuality is unnatural and improper to act out on is not restricting or impeding anyone's human rights.
This 'as long as no one gets hurt' mentality is about as shallow as one can think. The responses i see from Christians are more reflective of Maslow's self-actualization in the heirarchy of needs.
The other problem is that much of Christendom doesn't even understand how to present the argument. It's just comes acorss as some narrow mind fundie with homophobia. It's sad.

A Christian should be about all believers (and in a broader sense all people) fulfilling their God given potential. If a person bases their entire identity on their sexual attraction and what they do with their sex organs, then this aint happening. Period. End of story.

This has nothing to do with hurting or not hurting people, this has to do with secular people not believing the same as us, we should not expect them to conform to our sense of morality which is not accepted by secular society as law.

Daniel,
I can give you an entire case on why homosexual marriage hurts society and never mention the bible. Can do the same on abortion. Should we apply this same standard to murder? The problem is that you, like so many, have been influenced by postmodern thinking without knowing it. It is what drives progressives in the church. Not saying that the fundies have it right either. Perhaps there is a 3rd position that rejects the unloving response of neo-fundamental Christianity as well as the progressive's notion that opposing gay marriage is simply a religious position we shouldn't force on seculars.

jlay wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

jlay wrote:Wow, some of the responses show how much postmodern philosophy has affected Christian thought.

Saying the homosexuality is unnatural and improper to act out on is not restricting or impeding anyone's human rights.
This 'as long as no one gets hurt' mentality is about as shallow as one can think. The responses i see from Christians are more reflective of Maslow's self-actualization in the heirarchy of needs.
The other problem is that much of Christendom doesn't even understand how to present the argument. It's just comes acorss as some narrow mind fundie with homophobia. It's sad.

A Christian should be about all believers (and in a broader sense all people) fulfilling their God given potential. If a person bases their entire identity on their sexual attraction and what they do with their sex organs, then this aint happening. Period. End of story.

This has nothing to do with hurting or not hurting people, this has to do with secular people not believing the same as us, we should not expect them to conform to our sense of morality which is not accepted by secular society as law.

Daniel,
I can give you an entire case on why homosexual marriage hurts society and never mention the bible. Can do the same on abortion. Should we apply this same standard to murder? The problem is that you, like so many, have been influenced by postmodern thinking without knowing it. It is what drives progressives in the church. Not saying that the fundies have it right either. Perhaps there is a 3rd position that rejects the unloving response of neo-fundamental Christianity as well as the progressive's notion that opposing gay marriage is simply a religious position we shouldn't force on seculars.

I don't feel that I have been influenced by anything other than through prayer and meditation on what Jesus has said, but your probably right that there is a third position and we are both wrong.

Edit. Abortion is a separate issue, that is a basic human rights violation so my argument doesn't apply here, gay marriage is not a human rights violation, you can't equate one with the other.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
This has nothing to do with hurting or not hurting people, this has to do with secular people not believing the same as us, we should not expect them to conform to our sense of morality which is not accepted by secular society as law.

Are you willing to take that argument where it logically leads?

This argument only pertains to the marriage debate, all other issues would be argued on their merits, so I don't see it leading anywhere.

Daniel,

What jlay mentioned is just using your argument logically. If you don't think other people should be made to conform to our sense of morality, should they also not conform to our beliefs that it's wrong to murder? Wrong to kill the unborn? Wrong to rape little boys?

You need to think about the logical consequences of your argument.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Daniel wrote:
This has nothing to do with hurting or not hurting people, this has to do with secular people not believing the same as us, we should not expect them to conform to our sense of morality which is not accepted by secular society as law.

Are you willing to take that argument where it logically leads?

This argument only pertains to the marriage debate, all other issues would be argued on their merits, so I don't see it leading anywhere.

Daniel,

What jlay mentioned is just using your argument logically. If you don't think other people should be made to conform to our sense of morality, should they also not conform to our beliefs that it's wrong to murder? Wrong to kill the unborn? Wrong to rape little boys?

You need to think about the logical consequences of your argument.

I have thought about it's logical conclusions but your wrong because my argument only pertains to situations where there is no basic human rights violations, if there are human rights violations then that overrides any other argument. You guys really need to put your thinking caps on because my 9 year old son can even understand this.

Edit. Let's take your logic to its conclusion, marriage or as we call it is holy matrimony which is man, woman and God, since secular people don't recognise God they shouldn't be allowed to be married because it is not holy matrimony, that's what happens if we follow your logic to its conclusion.

That's ok j, I really don't want to waste my time trying to prove something which is not only self evident but also the core of human rights, I am baffled that you even would question this. Just sitting in your chair and asking yourself this question would give you the answer you demand of me.

You could tell me plainly ofcourse that you agree with me that its an inherent right...or not.

And for all your right arguments, they do nothing, have zero effect on helping a gay teen.

neo-x wrote:That's ok j, I really don't want to waste my time trying to prove something which is not only self evident but also the core of human rights, I am baffled that you even would question this. Just sitting in your chair and asking yourself this question would give you the answer you demand of me.

You could tell me plainly ofcourse that you agree with me that its an inherent right...or not.

And for all your right arguments, they do nothing, have zero effect on helping a gay teen.

Neo,

Pardon me for my brain fart, but I missed this somehow. What exactly are you telling jlay is an inherent right?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:That's ok j, I really don't want to waste my time trying to prove something which is not only self evident but also the core of human rights, I am baffled that you even would question this. Just sitting in your chair and asking yourself this question would give you the answer you demand of me.

You could tell me plainly ofcourse that you agree with me that its an inherent right...or not.

And for all your right arguments, they do nothing, have zero effect on helping a gay teen.

Neo,

Pardon me for my brain fart, but I missed this somehow. What exactly are you telling jlay is an inherent right?

Choosing a partner to marry.

There is no inherent right to do wrong. All wrongs are to be regulated against, although different wrongs are to regulated and different levels. So society regulates murder but not lying to your spouse, although it does regulate lying in a business contract. Yet again, society does not regulate the worship of a false god, and so on

You may argue that society ought not regulate the "marriage" of two men or two women, but you cannot say that people have a right to "marry" someone of the same sex. Not only is that NOT self-evident, and not only is it a bold claim that DOES need justification, it is, in fact, both incorrect and ridiculous.

Moreover, as Rick has been saying, you need to distinguish between whether or not society regulates against two men or two women choosing to live together or act in a manner that married couples do (i.e., their version of sex, such as it is), which would mean, in practice, the enforcement of sodomy laws; and between society simply not endorsing and promoting such "unions" through the granting of the legal status of marriage or its civil equivalents. What you've done is move beyond simply asking society generally and Christians specifically not to get involved. In saying we should permit gay "marriage," you are arguing (at least implicitly) that we actually endorse the practice. So now what your position entails, whether you realize it or not, is that homosexuals have a right to demand society recognize their illicit unions as permissible and even on par with marriage.

And that is wrong, and you are wrong to suggest it.

Isn't having the free will to choose an inherent human right?