Evidence for God from Science

Everyone's favorite topic, right? I wanted to make yet another open forum to discuss and debate the ethics, legal issues, and biblical repercussions regarding giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. I'll start this show with a bunch of stuff, so feel free to respond to any and/or all of it at your leisure. Just try to stay civil and respectful and leave your negative perceptions at the door.

1) This is a video, about 7 minutes long, and it's about as emotionally charged as you can get in this argument. It's basically a collection/montage of arguments for and against homosexual rights from the past 50-ish years. Please watch to the end if you are going to. I post it just because it gives a brief introduction to numerous arguments for gay rights. Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u62OtM_v ... AAAAAAAAAA

2) There is no legal pretext, no constitutional argument, and ultimately no legal argument for denying rights to any group of people in the United States. any objection to that statement? I ask you: Even if you disagree with somebody being born homosexual, can you honestly say that you agree with the limiting of the civil rights of any group of people? This should be all the context from the founders of the United States that you need:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

3) Jesus Christ, Paul, and all the Jewish apostles never said a single thing denouncing homosexuality. They preached love for all people, and never to treat anyone differently no matter what their lifestyle is.

4) You want to quote the Bible? Please explain these Bible passages regarding sexuality:

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.

My point is that these laws are archaic and only apply to the laws of that time. Think of it this way: Homosexuality was not accepted as a way of life until the 19th century. Until then, we were under the assumption that all people were heterosexual, and homosexual sex was just a choice. The people in the Bible who claimed that men should not lay with another man wrote that under the assumption that "a straight man should not lay with a straight man." Just as we've learned that these other biblical laws are immoral and ridiculous, these archaic statements by human beings (not Jesus) are equally outdated.

I'll stop with these for now.

Well lets see what Jesus had to say about the law "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17

I think that kinda speaks for itself.

Dan

So to that I say: Jesus must have advocated for every other law I posted, as they are on equal footing with that one line about a man laying next to another dude. I'll be sure to write to my senators about stoning adulterous women to death (sarcasm, of course, but you get the point).

Ivellious wrote:So to that I say: Jesus must have advocated for every other law I posted, as they are on equal footing with that one line about a man laying next to another dude. I'll be sure to write to my senators about stoning adulterous women to death (sarcasm, of course, but you get the point).

Were they decrees from God or where they the laws of the people at the time? I got no idea not my area, I am sure there are others that are more knowledgeable on the subject who have done a proper exegesis of the texts.
All I am pointing out is that while Jesus may not have said anything specific about homosexuality he did say he was not here to change the law.

Dan

Just to point out I am not against gay union's having all the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, but I will not except that it is on equal terms with marriage as the Bible stipulates what is constituted as marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The only thing I would be against in legal terms would be adoption as I feel this could have a very serious negative effect on the child as they develope.

Dan

My point about Jesus was that, if he liked all the laws in place (like the one on homosexuality), then by that logic he also was ok with stoning adulterers and the other sexual laws in place. You can't infer that he only meant to be ok with some and not others.

And, while I doubt I could ever actually convince you of it, there is zero evidence to support the idea that gay couples damage children that they raise. By that extension, single mothers should also be banned from raising kids because they aren't being shown the "proper" man-woman relationship paradigm. In fact, a scientific study recently demonstrated that gay couples tend to be more committed and motivated parents on average compared to heterosexual couples, because every single homosexual couple CHOSE to raise a child or children. They are more prepared to be parents for this reason too, as opposed to half the heterosexual parents out there who accidentally have a kid despite not wanting one or being woefully unprepared.

My point about Jesus was that, if he liked all the laws in place (like the one on homosexuality), then by that logic he also was ok with stoning adulterers and the other sexual laws in place. You can't infer that he only meant to be ok with some and not others.

No Jesus said to love you enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so what he means is to hate the sin but not the sinner.
He is not changing the law but is fulfilling it, I am sure we have gone over this countless times in other threads.
So in the example of adulterous behaviour we do not condone it and will speak out against it but I don't think stoning is necessary according to Jesus.
Do you understand the difference between hating the sin and not the sinner, I suppose this would be a hard concept for an unbeliever to understand as they have let their sins define who they are so really they would see it as an attack on them and not the sin but I assure you that is not the case.
When I was a smoker I found it hard to quit because I thought that it was apart of who I was and this made it very hard to quit, I had made my sin define who I was and I never realised this until I met Christ.

And, while I doubt I could ever actually convince you of it, there is zero evidence to support the idea that gay couples damage children that they raise. By that extension, single mothers should also be banned from raising kids because they aren't being shown the "proper" man-woman relationship paradigm. In fact, a scientific study recently demonstrated that gay couples tend to be more committed and motivated parents on average compared to heterosexual couples, because every single homosexual couple CHOSE to raise a child or children. They are more prepared to be parents for this reason too, as opposed to half the heterosexual parents out there who accidentally have a kid despite not wanting one or being woefully unprepared.

I agree with you that a lot of heterosexual parents are not fit to raise children, as far as I am concerned I fear for the welfare of any child that is not raised in the way God intended, that is by two loving parents consisting of a male and female that raise their child in accordance with Gods wishes unless of course there is a single parent family that has come about through no fault of their own.


Dan

That's a weird form of reasoning. So, Jesus didn't want to change any of the laws, so the law against homosexuality is still valid...but we can assume by him not saying anything that he had certain opinions about each one? I'm confused.

I understand "love the sinner, hate the sin," but where does this apply here? The Bible says to stone the sinner. Jesus says nothing...Sooooo....where do we get this idea that we get to forget some parts and not others, if Jesus literally says nothing about it?

I personally find your fear to be slightly insulting and insensitive. There has yet to be a single ounce of evidence that kids raised by homosexual couples are any worse off compared to heterosexual couples. That includes socially, emotionally, morally, intellectually...And, if you want to look at it this way, which life sounds better for a child? Live your first 18 years in an orphanage, after which you get a wad of cash and get kicked out the door...Or you can live a life being loved and supported by two parents who love each other?

That's a weird form of reasoning. So, Jesus didn't want to change any of the laws, so the law against homosexuality is still valid...but we can assume by him not saying anything that he had certain opinions about each one? I'm confused.

No he said he was going to fulfill the law meaning he was completing the law, he was not changing what was right and wrong that remained as it was.
I am sorry but your above sentence is confusing, what Jesus said was pretty clear and I am not assuming anything, Jesus said to love your neighbour as you would love yourself ( Mark 12:31 )so we are to have compassion for the sinner and bring them to Jesus so that they may change and grow.

I understand "love the sinner, hate the sin," but where does this apply here? The Bible says to stone the sinner. Jesus says nothing...Sooooo....where do we get this idea that we get to forget some parts and not others, if Jesus literally says nothing about it?

Like I said earlier I am not well versed on those specific passages etc... I am not sure of context and will let someone else answer that part. I will try to do some research on it but I have limited time to do any sort of study.

I personally find your fear to be slightly insulting and insensitive. There has yet to be a single ounce of evidence that kids raised by homosexual couples are any worse off compared to heterosexual couples. That includes socially, emotionally, morally, intellectually...And, if you want to look at it this way, which life sounds better for a child? Live your first 18 years in an orphanage, after which you get a wad of cash and get kicked out the door...Or you can live a life being loved and supported by two parents who love each other?

Ok first off I do not fear homosexuals one of my wife's friends is gay and I get along with him just fine, if he ever asks me what I think of his lifestyle I will tell him with kindness and compassion that I think what he is doing is wrong and try to point him to Jesus, I resent the fact that you seem to think you know my intentions and feelings. A child raised in a homosexual relationship will come to believe that this is a normal and right practise and could fall into sin themselves and become spiritually dead or worse be separated from God for ever, so yes there are real ramifications from a Christian perspective. Orphans is another issue altogether please stick to the topic we are discussing and not to throw out red herrings and appeals to emotion.

Dan

Oh, this is an interesting subject. I am going to ignore the youtube video for the moment. I don't care much for the youtuve activists out there.

I don't believe anyone is "born" homosexual. I also don't believe anyone is "born" heterosexual.

1. Define "rights". You're going to need to explain what you believe "everyone" have "rights" to.
2. The constitution preamble as you have quoted excludes women from these rights. Are you sure you want to use that as an example? Define these terms. Life, liberty, and "the pursuit of happiness".
3. You are factually wrong about what the bible says about homosexual acts.
Romans 1 by Paul
(NASB)Romans 1:26-32
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, [27] and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. [28] And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, [29] being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; [32] and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

4. I actually would like for you to explain the bible verses you have quoted as you understand them. Context is very important. It simply is intellectually irresponsible and dishonest to quote them as some kind of "proof" for "culturally out of date" law. You actually commit the genetic fallacy on that one as well. Ones culture or time period does not validate or invalidate their position.

As far as the cherry picking of bible verses. Let's say you asked me to do a book report. If I read 1 sentence in the book per hundred pages, would you say that I have a good understanding of the story? Would you say I am in a good position to criticize the story of the book as a good or bad one?

A quick google search brought up this.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/ ... -a-father/

Just remember - just because liberal ideas may seem right to us - does not mean they are right. Utimately God knows what is best for us - even though we do not believe it ourselves. We start questionning God and making different interpretations on it then we are making God in our image.

I believe homosexuality is a sin - however I also believe promicious sex is a sin as well. I believe lying is a sin, stealing, gossip etc..

I am certainly guilty of the others to differing extents. Therefore I have sinned and need forgiveness which luckily I have. So I see a Homosexual as a sinner the same as me - no worse, no less. Both of us are in need of forgiveness. And Jesus offers us that forgiveness.

People when ever then refer to the OT always miss the reason why it does seem overally harsh. This was for the Israelites - not us. They were Gods Chosen people - they were to be a light on a hill surrounded by quite nasty Pagan cultures - so they needed to be refined as their race was to birth the Messiah. They were meant to be a holy people. Which meant no homosexual acts, or sex outside marriage, or adultery etc. Once Jesus arrived - the law was fufilled. and now Leviticus no longer applies to us. Only the Ten commandments - or even more accurately - the merged version that Jesus himself gave - love the Lord our God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your Neighbour as yourself.

Silvertusk.

Ivel, I'm gonna wait for your response to Dom's post.

Just to add into what silver said, have you tried and read any historical source about people that God commanded Israelite to cast out? Sex rituals were mostly practiced as a form of worship in many ancient cultures and so was humans sacrifices (infant and child sacrifices), tattooing, piercing, and that is the reason God explicitly forbade Israel to not practice any such acts and a severe punishment was put in place. Sodomy was one such act, it was forbidden. So was cannibalism and eating and drinking of blood. And the punishment of that was the same as well. So I would suggest that you read it, give it some time, read the commentaries, and then come about forming your argument. A sweeping generalization won't give you the best results. I mean, to be honest, I see no relevance of what you are saying with the implication you are trying to make. The verses you quoted are all from the O.T and were applied to Jews, not you and me. As a matter of fact, I find it odd that you would quote two verses from mark, when those passages are short references to events which happened in the O.T, you could have directly mentioned those. Quoting those passages from the N.T won't get you support from the N.T.

Also, applying a modern concept of social acceptance for gay people - to an ancient people is not an ideal way to argument. You have to go back and see the context, then and now and so on and so forth.

Just food for thought. I think about levitican and mosian law alot, and if you think about it, you can find good reason for just about every law.

Sodomy, on top of what neo said about it with pagan rituals and such, will and does cause disease to spread. And if I remember correctly (which I never do soo, feel free to correct) levitican law was created during the time of exodus when the iraelites were in the wilderness. So disease spreading around a group of wandering nomads would probably not be a good thing eh? And honestly that senerio makes sence of alot of the laws we struggle with in the old testament.

1) To define rights: All human beings, homosexual or heterosexual, ought to be given the exact same rights and privileges as anyone else. This includes marriage to whomever they love, to give them as a group full protection under law (which they do not have), the right to adopt, and all other inequities in the law.

2) You are right (though my quote came from the Declaration of Independence, a little different). That document also excluded black people and, very likely, Asians, Arabs, etc...Since then, we have determined that the proper way that statement should be interpreted is ALL people. I consider all legal attacks on homosexuality, on being Muslim, on being Mexican...They are all the exact same thing that was used against African Americans. The same thing that was used against Asians after WWII. It is a lie that we believe in the rights of all people when we still pick and choose groups to discriminate against.

3) My bad on Paul. I guess he did say one such thing. I understand that the Bible makes comments against straight men doing "unnatural" things. Of course, as discussed earlier, Jesus still never said any such thing. And while you seem to exclude these other laws (like murdering people for doing anything sexual outside of marriage...), and claim they only apply in that ancient context, then I flatly say that a law against homosexuality is equivalent and shouldn't be held in a modern context any more. Even your quote of Paul groups that in with the laws demanding execution of sinners.

Indeed, I still think this quote demonstrates my point very well. There was no such thing as homosexuality in biblical times. Everyone was presumed to only be able to be aroused by the opposite gender. Today, the reasonable and educated world accepts that homosexuality is not a disease or a choice. It is not "learned," nor is it curable. It's not a choice. Paul wrote under the assumption that these were straight men who were "giving in" to some kind of primal/demonic urge.

4) The first two verses are rather straightforward, they command death by stoning to adultery and sex before marriage. The second is still upheld in some sects of Christianity. The Bible does clearly ban divorce. But apparently, today we are totally ok with it, especially good with so many good Christians contributing to the 50% divorce rate. The 4th and 6th quotes are more biblical law.

The Mark quote, however, is extremely clear: Moses commanded that if a man dies with no offspring his brother must try to have a child with his wife. Jesus was posed the question of "well, who's wife is she?" Jesus's only response was that she is none of their wives because in Heaven there is no marriage. So...this is biblical law without context, and Jesus is cool with it too.

I understand your point on cherry picking verses. But in this case, your argument seems to be: The laws against sexuality outside of marriage and so on don't count because they only applied to times when disease was rampant. So, why is homosexuality not counted among them? Paul clearly lumps them all together in a catch-all statement about sin. So, apparently, some things that were sin then are no longer sin now....

what concerns you with old testament law so much? Gay rights is a modern debate and bringing up ancient law that Christians do not follow doesn't really solve anything.

Christians follow new testament law or new testament grace. Jesus narrowed down the nearly 600 Hebrew laws to 2 which we follow. Love the lord your god with all your heart mind and soul, love thy neighbor as thyself

Galatians 5:4 , Galatians 5:18

And yes premarital sex violates the new covenant grace, and many things do, it's called SIN. I personally am against gay marriage because it seems to legitimize a sin. If their was a adultery "rights" group I'd be just as opposed to it.