Nearly 12,000 replies to this thread. Wow. There's pretty much no chance I'm going to read even 0.1% of those, so I'll just speak my peace, assume I've probably not said anything new, and be just fine with that.
I think I'll answer this piecemeal.
Elf Lord Chiewn
This thread is a rebirth of AcidSniper's "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.
A "rebirth," eh? What was insufficient about the first thread that you felt it needed to be born again?
Elf Lord Chiewn
Updated: April 12, 2007
Updated: April 4, 2009 (see bottom of first post for hell discussion update/concession)
If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:
likely violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.
How interesting that embracing sin has been equated with unconditional love. As for "likely," you were wise to include the qualifier. How is it, though, that I cannot love another person with that agape, and yet not accept that which they do in violation of God's will? Must we accept sin to accept the sinner?
Elf Lord Chiewn
judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
How is opposing an alteration on one of God's own institutions a judgment--and I think you actually mean "condemnation"--of anyone?
God has commanded us not to judge
unjustly or
unrighteously lest we suffer that same kind of judgment ourselves. I don't recall God saying, "Don't ever try to discern between good and evil, because that's
mean!"
We are well within our rights to judge and discriminate in certain ways. Seriously, if you knew someone what a child molester, for instance, would you have your kids hanging out with them? Why not?
I see no fault with recognising that someone is homosexual and telling them that. Nor do I see anything wrong with agreeing with God's ordained version of marriage. That's not an attack or an affront on anyone, nor is it any kind of unjust judgment.
Now, if you unequivocally say, "You're gay, so you're evil and going to Hell,"
that is an unrighteous judgment, and
that is what God commands us not to do. What do we know of anyone's heart? Who are we to say who will live with God or who will not?
Elf Lord Chiewn
inaccurately referencing the bible and making a false case, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions. If you do, do not expect to be taken seriously.
Well since you're the one postulating the negative (that "homosexuality is not a sin" ), then please show how you support that idea?
Also, I'm curious to know what authority you have to interpret the scriptures?
Elf Lord Chiewn
arguing against rights which would clearly benefit a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.
Ah, yes. The old argument of what "rights" are, and who deserves them. Rights, my friend, are inherent to us, and cannot justly be legislated. They are self-realising, and have their own, inherent restrictions.
Marriage, however, is a
privilege. Privileges have qualifiers, or they wouldn't be privileges.
The rhetoric that marriage is, somehow, a "right" is simply false, and always has been, since marriage has always had qualifiers.
I understand the benefits of marriage--I know them from personal experience. But to say that homosexuals cannot marry is patently false because they already have just as much right to marry as I do. They go out and find a nice person of the opposite sex, and get married as marriage has always been done.
To say that opposing gay-marriage "eliminates rights," therefore, is absurd and misleading.
As for "hardly different from the norm" and "who never offended you," how is that relevant in any way to opposing gay marriage? That's like saying we should give a 12 year old a valid driver's license because he/she never offended anyone, and isn't any different from "the norm."
Again, marriage is a privilege.
Anyone who qualifies for it (at least in the US) can have it.
Can you tell me how changing the most important, and one of the most unique of all human relationships to satisfy the emotional whimsy of a sexually deviant group will help society at large?
Furthermore, how does the statement that we're "arguing against beneficial rights" mean that someone is somehow not a good Christian? Because we're supposed to just give everyone everything they want because of "agape"?
Elf Lord Chiewn
Only recognizing heterosexual unions means that homosexuals will be hurt. I wouldn't want to have to marry someone I didn't love and wasn't attracted to in order to get those nifty things like tax writeoffs, health care, adoption rights, and the dignity of legal marriage, which carries great social meaning.
See, that right there indicates a significant portion of the problem: that we've entirely divorced procreation from the purpose of marriage. If marriage is nothing more than the list of benefits you mentioned, then no, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to restrict it as we do--to
qualify it as we do.
But since we've made marriage all about some vague and shifting definition of "love," we've completely forgotten that marriage was
not created as some spiffy little emotional outlet, but as
the basis of a stable society.
I wouldn't want to marry someone I didn't love, either, but guess what? Not all of us marry in this life. We need to get over ourselves and realise that no man is an island, and that a society composed of individuals who are primarily concerned with their own needs above those of others
will not sustain itself.
Homosexual unions already have been given the majority of the essential benefits that heterosexual unions have been, and yet... they want more. They want "marriage," when it would be marriage in name only, since there's no innate ability to procreate. IVF is a possibility, but it still requires someone else's material, thereby cementing the fact that a homosexual couple--married or not--is inherently a procreative dead end.
That's completely counter-intuitive to our basic biology.
Marriage has social meaning precisely
because of its meaning and value: it's the seedbed for the continuation of our entire society, as couples properly rear children to be good citizens. It's a shame that so many have already flushed marriage and child rearing down the toilet through so many broken homes--personally, I think that's done more damage than gay marriage is likely to--but just recognising that same-sex eros is equal to a legal union that has the power to produce children? How is that logical?
Eros--since you're using Greek terms for love--is the dividing line between "romantic" and "non-romantic" relationships. So what it all boils down to is asking for sexual deviance (speaking statistically) to be equated with a biologically and socially viable version of sex.
You use that logic to say that someone is not a good Christian because they recognise those obvious differences? How do you justify that stance?
Elf Lord Chiewn
likely making a grievous error. Legal and Judaic marriage are distinct and not to be confused with one another. "To protect marriage" is not a valid reason for voting for a ban on gay marriage, as the two have nothing to do with one another.
On the contrary, I think the "to protect marriage" is a perfectly valid reason for banning gay marriage for all the reasons listed above.
If marriage is altered to be the legal union of any two parties (notice I don't say "people" ), then where is the unique status of marriage? Where does that put the "great social meaning" that you mentioned earlier?
Think about it--there are plenty of cohabitant couples that live together, and probably could make a real case for loving one another. Yet... they're not married. Just "loving one another" and even living together does not a marriage make.
Again, procreation
is a key factor in what makes marriage a unique institution--it's not
just the legally recognised bond.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Nothing is threatened - legal or Judaic - and nobody is trying to force your church to marry gay people.
Nothing is threatened? See above.
As for "nobody is trying to force your church to marry gay people," well, perhaps not at the moment. Perhaps they won't even have to. That doesn't mean people won't start suing churches who refuse to marry them. They've already sued
entire states for not recognising out-of-state marriages. What's going to stop them from slapping a discrimination suit on a church that refuses their wish, when they've already been given the go-ahead to change something as timeless and vital as marriage?
The threat is more real than you seem to believe, my friend.
Can we please get away from the same old, tired arguments, especially when they're so obviously unsupported?
Can you also explain how homosexuality is
not being forced on anyone when a small number of judges with a very telling track record can--at will--effectively overturn a majority vote (especially when the number of votes was in the millions)?
Not only are people trying to change what marriage is, they're also threatening my privilege to vote and have my vote count for something.
That doesn't sound much like "not forcing" to me.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Honestly, nobody cares about your particular church.
Meaning, "Honestly, I, Elf Lord Chiewn, doesn't care about your particular church." How nice of you to reveal yourself so impartially after condemning people as "bad Christians" because they don't agree with your views.
And if no one cares about a particular church, then why'd the Mormons get singled out for protests and vandalism in the wake of the recent Prop 8 vote?
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in spray-painting "stop the hate" on the walls of one of their holy buildings? How is vandalism somehow more loving than standing up for one's personal beliefs?
Elf Lord Chiewn
If you think the rest of us do, I suggest you get over yourselves.
[Insert laughter here]
Who is it that needs to get over oneself? If you think that
no one cares about
anyone else's religion, then you have been living in a very small, myopic bubble.
Religious beliefs are common among the majority of people across the world. Religion has been a binding tie for billions throughout history, and has had very real social consequences throughout the ages, for both good and ill.
To just flippantly write off religion... is unwise, I think.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Religious considerations have little to do with societal ones. (Especially for a bunch of Goyim. ;P)
See above.
It may be that you're not a US citizen, in which case I could excuse the ignorance about the fact that the US was
founded on religious ideals and principles, which serve as the basis of law, from the Constitution downward.
No tie between religious and societal considerations? Seriously, are you
really that ignorant, or are you just self-deluded, because you don't want to subscribe to any kind of dogma but your own logic?
Elf Lord Chiewn
If your church dictates how you should vote, you should rethink not only your adherence to but your membership concerning a power-obsessed organization.
I agree. We should all leave the religion of the Mass Media at once!
Elf Lord Chiewn
There is strong canonical evidence (e.g., Matthew 22:21) as well as strong social evidence (e.g., the subjugation of the Gnostics, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Puritannical witch hunts) affirming the necessity of a clear line between the two.
Religions needn't dictate--nor should they--how we vote. But that in no way says that religious beliefs will not influence ones conscience. I believe we
should vote our consciences, regardless of what our religious leaders may think. But just because people abused religion in the past--and some still do--doesn't mean we should (or even actually
can) divorce our personal beliefs from the way we vote.
Elf Lord Chiewn
You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.
You know, given that you've already said you don't care about anyone's religion, and have mocked it in several ways, what makes you think that anyone would take your interpretation of
their religion seriously?
I mean, really? What?
Of course marriage isn't solely a Christian term. Why even try to debate that?
The fact that you've been spouting classic "gay rights" arguments throughout this entire thread--and asking people to show biblical verses to support
their arguments, when you've done none of that yourself-- doesn't convince me that you even know what marriage really
is or why it is so special.
So please, if you're not even married, and if you can't do better than to regurgitate someone else's arguments by resurrecting their thread, do not try to convince me that I don't know what marriage is and is not.
Elf Lord Chiewn
There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times,
Which may be why the Bible (especially in the writings of Paul) uses the terms "strange flesh" and "men defiling themselves with men," (same for women), and "strange love."
Perhaps the lack of a term should indicate that there was no
need for such a term, because it was commonly and inherently understood to be a contrary and deviant sexual practice?
Elf Lord Chiewn
... and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible.
Again you try to resort to defending your case with the Bible when you've repeatedly made it clear that you a) don't understand it, b) don't really care about it, and c) have no authority to interpret it anyway.
How can you really think you're making a good case by standing on something you don't even believe?
Elf Lord Chiewn
Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.
Just like we've twisted the words "love," "marriage," and "rights" into grotesque mockeries that can be used to support whatever whims we want, yes?
Isn't language wonderful?
And how does the term "men burning in their lusts, one to another" not equate to homosexuality?
Oh, by the way, I'm curious how much Greek you actually can speak.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Acts (the Council of Jerusalem), Galatians (Paul), and Collossians 2 (Paul). If these three references are in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.
So... you also don't understand the purpose of the Mosaic Law, nor any of the previous laws given by God that predate--and supercede--the Law of Moses.
Moving on.
Elf Lord Chiewn
And before you start quoting Romans 1, read the second post. Also, do the world a favor and note that God is the one causing people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily in retribution for the same people ignoring God.
Here, you demonstrate further that you don't understand the scriptures--no surprise, since you don't seem to believe them-- and you go on to further demonstrate that you don't know anything about how God Himself works.
If God were to start forcing people to do things if said people don't agree with Him... wouldn't he be forcing
everyone to do
exactly as
He wanted them to do? In which case, this debate wouldn't even be happening, since we'd all be thinking however God wanted us to think, and there'd be no disagreement in the first place.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Discussion update (4-4-2009), with little bearing on the above points: Conceding to TNG that a form of Hell is a potentially valid concept within the canon in light of Revelation (see: limne pur/lake of fire/crazy ramblings of some John person). I think we're agreed on a general distaste for Revelation as canon-worthy material.
And why should the Revelation of John not be canon-worth material? Because a bunch of ignorant people who are 2000 years removed from it can't understand it?
Wow. There's a solid argument.
Elf Lord Chiewn
Personally, I've never given Revelation much in the way of merit; I'm sure some new hell discussion thread will be spawned at some point. Let's hope it originates/remains in M&R this time and is suitable for public consumption.
No wonder you can't understand Revelations. You've invalidated right from the get-go.
Please, from a logical, academic standpoint, do
yourself a favor and don't try to argue from a position of weakness. I get that you're referring to the Bible since you're refuting what many Christians use as their primary support for their arguments, but if you repeatedly claim to neither believe nor credit it--nor even care about religion--that only shows that you've made no real attempt to even
understand the opposing viewpoint.
That, then, leaves you with only your own little, borrowed thoughts, and does nothing to expose any real weakness in the other argument. In order to dethrone an opposing argument, you have to first understand it well enough to be able to promote it--and almost mean it. Your understanding really does need to be quite thorough if you're going to make an effective case.
All I've seen in this thread are unsupported statements, vagueness, and recycled rhetoric.
I'm fine if you want to believe as you will--that's your right (not just privilege), and I won't contest it. Likewise, I'm free to believe that your post makes you look ignorant and foolish because it's unsupported and somewhat nebulous.
