Should gay marriages be allowed

[DeletedUser16008]

There you go again, just because you cannot argue a point successfully you ignore pertinent facts; then resort to misinformation and insults, and make believe that is an effective rebuttal.

You havn't presented any facts, its all story and supposition of a religion. Not that whatever your beliefs are bother me just when you think to impose them on everyone else as such.

 

[DeletedUser]

One thing, don't bring Buddhists into it. Buddhism is not and never has been a religion.

Umm, if you wish to debate this, please take it to a different thread. I would be happy to pwn you elsewhere.

There you go again, just because you cannot argue a point successfully you ignore pertinent facts; then resort to misinformation and insults, and make believe that is an effective rebuttal.

I argued all the points successfully <click here and here>. You're the one with your tail between your legs trying to hide behind a book of scripture, using circular reasoning (a form of false logic) as the justification for your assertions.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Umm, if you wish to debate this, please take it to a different thread. I would be happy to pwn you elsewhere.

sigh* The only way to understand Buddhism is to practice it, I do and have for a long time, both in the East and West. Are you sure you want to go there on this ?

 

[DeletedUser30834]

That's a choice, but having the power to vote still exists.


Despite the bulk of your (and others) arguments being fallacious reasonings, false logic, I responded to them in my earlier post here ---> http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=626018&postcount=83. That you decided to completely ignore my rebuttals doesn't make your present assertion true. In short, you're lieing.

I'm serious now, if you cannot keep the comments in context with the statements made, stop posting replies to them. I as you have done in most of your arguments, dismissed your earlier comments out of hand as worthless babble (as it was) and never bothered commenting on them. We are talking about specific things right here and I even quoted your misteps in order to avoid confusion and derailment. Your inability to concentrate on the context of the statements does not in any way make me a liar. It just makes you a failure at competently debating something. I don't care about your beliefs or what you think about other things. You are simply wrong on your misinterpretations of scripture anddo not know what you are talking about. This is evident right here where you attempted to derail the point to something I never even responded to. Grow up.

I see, I guess I'll rephrase then. I wasn't aware the whole world is worshiping the One God of Israel, there is no more hunger, illness, or death, or that all the dead have arisen, all weapons of war have been destroyed, barren land was made abundant and fruitful, or that we have World Peace.

Why would it be? It certainly doesn't appear to be that way to me. My comment was in the context of the bible and if you believe that is supposed to of already happen, you are completely wrong as you have previously demonstrated. All prophecies are not fulfilled, just the one bringing Jesus as our savior bringing in the new covenant with God. You should really learn something about this before commenting on it.

I must confess one thing. It is refreshing to see that, ultimately, when all other false arguments are effectively challenged, this argument is really about religious extremists violating their tenets to impose their beliefs upon others (luckily, women gained their rights despite the religious extremists, now let's see if other wrongs can be righted whilst battling the wave of idiocy imposed by extremists and their distorted interpretations of their sacred tomes).

I have seen no argument you have effectively made that challenged anything. Your insistence of something being a certain way while ignoring the views and opinions of others is not an effective challenge. Calling it fallacious and rambling incoherent thoughts is not effectively challenging anything.

This argument is about laws in place based on the values of the society under them for the benefit of society. Where they draw those values from or the perceived benefits is not important other then needing to get the support of that society in order to change the without a fight. But I seriously fail to see how anyone is violating any religious tenet unless you are going to trot out another one of your misinterpretations of a religion and claim it to be fact despite all participant in the rleigion holding a different view of it.

The only thing you have accomplished in these last few posts is to prove to the world how incompetent you are in the understanding of religious matters and how that incompetence allows you to look silly in other matters when you attempt to impose your own beliefs. But I'm sure you will continue to demonstrate this when you claim everything other then what you want to believe in is fallacious because you said so and only your views are right and can be correct.

 

[DeletedUser]

Unlike you, Sum, I'm debating the topic at hand. At the points when you start attempting to debate something off-topic, I don't bother to provide a rebuttal. If you wish to debate the Bible, create a different thread. As to your ad hominems, that's yet more fallacious reasoning (false logic) you regularly utilize as a means to avoid debating the topic at hand. Face it dude, false logic is all you ever bring to the table.

I'm done.

 

[DeletedUser]

Unlike you, Sum, I'm debating the topic at hand. At the points when you start attempting to debate something off-topic, I don't bother to provide a rebuttal. If you wish to debate the Bible, create a different thread. As to your ad hominems, that's yet more fallacious reasoning (false logic) you regularly utilize as a means to avoid debating the topic at hand. Face it dude, false logic is all you ever bring to the table.

I'm done.

Like I said before, and you continue to ignore, is that belief is the heart of the issue and you cannot discuss one without the other. You are the one who put faith in the bible on the defense and now you get up in arms because one defends their belief system. You make a habit of insulting ppl for their belief and in the same post say how they are trying to force that belief on you.

Oh, your done, well excuse me if I don't break out in tears...

 

[DeletedUser]

There you go again, just because you cannot argue a point successfully you ignore pertinent facts; then resort to misinformation and insults, and make believe that is an effective rebuttal.

Like I said before, and you continue to ignore, is that belief is the heart of the issue and you cannot discuss one without the other. You are the one who put faith in the bible on the defense and now you get up in arms because one defends their belief system. You make a habit of insulting ppl for their belief and in the same post say how they are trying to force that belief on you.

You know, this gameplay being presented is annoying. I already addressed your arguments, all your arguments, and you didn't pose a rebuttal to them. The tactic used, instead of posing rebuttal, is to claim I insulted you (when I did not).

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=626018&postcount=83

Lasarstar earlier posed a firm response to your present silliness: "Using the bible as a historical reference for how to define marriage is not the best idea. In the bible marriage was clearly an institution that had benefits to men that were not extended to women. Men could have many wives. Men could divorce wives if they chose, but not vice versa. If a man died his wife was not able to inherit so she was a pauper who had to rely on the generosity of her sons. If she had no sons she was basically worthless and if her family didn't care for her she would be left as a begger. Women who were divorced or widowed were lucky if they were allowed to go through the fields after the crops had been harvested and pick up the little bits that were left behind."

Ultimately if you claim adherence to the Old Testament, then you must follow that homosexuality is not for Man to ordain rules upon, but instead for God. So, if the Laws of God are to be enforced, then kill homosexuals, liars, atheists, your obstinate children and your cheating wives, then of course have the Laws of Man incarcerate your ass. if you claim adherence to the New Testament, the Laws of God are not to be applied on earth (and instead it is now God who imposes), then leave homosexuals alone and allow them to marry by the Laws of Man.

The real argument, the real heart of the issue, isn't belief. Civil marriage is not an issue of religion, it is a legal contract providing legal rights <click here> and it is managed/authorized by the government. And yes Willy, I'm done. No new rebuttals are being presented (just attitudes), thus I'm tasked to repeat myself.

 

[DeletedUser]

You know, this gameplay being presented is annoying. I already addressed your arguments, all your arguments, and you didn't pose a rebuttal to them. The tactic used, instead of posing rebuttal, is to claim I insulted you (when I did not).

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=625765&postcount=58
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=626018&postcount=83

Ultimately if you claim adherence to the Old Testament, then you must follow that homosexuality is not for Man to ordain rules upon, but instead for God. So, if the Laws of God are to be enforced, then kill homosexuals, liars, atheists, your obstinate children and your cheating wives, then of course have the Laws of Man incarcerate your ass. if you claim adherence to the New Testament, the Laws of God are not to be applied on earth (and instead it is now God who imposes), then leave homosexuals alone and allow them to marry by the Laws of Man.

And yes Willy, I'm done. No new rebuttals are being presented, just attitudes, thus I'm tasked to repeat myself.

LOL, you talk a lot for someone who is supposedly finished.(Done is not the right word) Yes unless the laws of man say otherwise they are allowed to marry. That's not an argument that addresses the issue. The question was "should they." This implies opinion and belief. And again you show you ignorance of the bible with your comment about the new testament.
As far as your insults, I guess words like idiocy are complements in your vocabulary...

PS: I have addressed all your supposed arguments that apply to me in various posts. You maybe did not read them or were intentionally ignoring them as they were not successfully argued by your posts. Over half of your posts were directed at sumdumass not me so I don't feel the need to reply to those as we do not agree on every detail of the issue just as you and Vic disagree on issues.

 

[DeletedUser]

And again you show you ignorance of the bible with your comment about the new testament.

Again, if you wish to debate the Bible, create a new thread. Attempting to derail the discussion is a typical debate tactic, but it is cheap and against the forum rules.

As far as you insults. I guess words like idiocy are complements in your vocabulary...

I didn't realize you were a religious extremist. Let's go reread my post, shall we?

"(luckily, women gained their rights despite the religious extremists, now let's see if other wrongs can be righted whilst battling the wave of idiocy imposed by extremists and their distorted interpretations of their sacred tomes)."​

PS: I have addressed all your supposed arguments that apply to me in various posts.

No you did not. You instead attempted to change the focus of the discussion (red herring fallacy), misrepresented arguments (strawman fallacy) and played the victim card (victim fallacy).

 

[DeletedUser]

Let's directly address the opposition arguments:

Traditional Marriage --- one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that it is not traditional. Traditional refers to historical. Historically, same-sex marriage has been going on since before 2000 B.C., long before Abrahamic religions instituted death penalties for participating in male/male sexual activity (interestingly, most Abrahamic religions have no issue with women/women sexual activity), which effectively ended same sex-marriage in Abraham-based theocracies. FALSE ARGUMENT - opposite sex marriage is not traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is gender nuetral.

I pretty sure I was clear that according to the bible marriage was instituted by God.

Let's directly address the opposition arguments:
Civil Union --- another argument is that there already exists, in some places, civil unions. Unfortunately, civil unions cover less than half of the legal issues covered under respective States, and nothing Federal. Civil unions are substandard civil contracts, a pale comparison to civil marriage. FALSE ARGUMENT - civil unions provide far less rights, powers, and privileges than civil marriages.

Not my argument, I said marriage is different than two gays living together not equal or the same thing.

No Government --- yet another argument is to claim that the government should not be a participant in marriage. This mentality is a hold-over from theocratic dissociation and the blurring of lines that theocratic governments created. In theocracies, religions dictated and enforced laws, provided and removed rights. However, theocracies were performing two roles: governance and belief systematization. For nations without theocracies, these two are separate and belief systematization has not legal authority, does not provide or deny rights within a governed nation. Governments define/enforce civil and criminal law. Governments provide consequence for breach of contract and provision of contractual rights. Marriage is a civil contract precisely because it provides rights & authorities. FALSE ARGUMENT - marriages are civil contracts governed and enforced by governments.

Not my argument.

No "Gay" Gene --- and yet another argument is that homosexuality is not genetic, that it is instead behavioral and a lifestyle. However, the American Psychological Association, in a brief to the Supreme Court, concluded, "there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage." [1] In all the valid studies, it was determined that homosexual and heterosexual early histories ("nurture") do not differ substantially as to warrant conclusive external causations. Early studies determined prenatal hormones to be a major factor in determining sexuality (and transgender status), but a DNA study back in 2003 found 54 genes associated with the expression of sex, indicating that while hormones are a factor, they are not the only "nature" determinate. Additional studies have since provided ample evidence that DNA and prenatal hormones play a markedly significant factor in determining sexual orientation. [2] [3] Basically what this means is, qouting Dr. Bogaert of Brock University, "the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference." [4] IGNORANCE - there are physiological/biological (DNA) differentiations that result in differing results and influence by, and of, prenatal hormonal secretions.

"'Gay' is not a condition or disease, it is a behavior and a life style. Some may say that some ppl are more genetically predisposed to be gay but ppl are genetically predisposed to be killers or criminals but society does not accept that behavior either."

Gay Rights --- It is argued that gays have the same rights, that a man can marry a woman and thus everyone has the same rights. But, the mere fact a homosexual is not able to marry their partner, while a heterosexual can, demonstrates they do not have the same rights. I provided ample evidence in my earlier post that clearly shows they do not have the same rights. In the U.S. alone, only six States allow same-sex marriage while 44 other States, and the Federal government, do not recognize these marriages and thus do not provide legal recognition or benefits. FALSE - homosexuals do not have the same rights and are, in fact, prevented from obtaining a civil marriage of equal function to that of a heterosexual civil marriage.

Sumdumass addressed this one as I recall he said (paraphrasing) that even heterosexuals are not always allowed to marry whom they choose.

People Hate Gays --- I love this argument. This argument claims that because gays are not liked, they should not receive equal rights (an example is disallowing them the right to assemble for fear violence will be posed against them). Look, it's simple --- if you know there are criminals out there, you do not lock up the potential victims or deny them their civil rights. FALSE PREMISE - Prejudice is not a reasonable governing policy.

I don't remember anyone bringing this up but you.

Most People Are Against It --- This argument claims that the majority of people are against providing same-sex marriage, and thus it should be denied. However, majority rule, mob rule, is not the manner to manage legal issues. Women and Blacks would not have obtained equal rights in the U.S. if there was no Constitution. Just because it was unpopular is not a legitimate reason to deny equality. FALSE ARGUMENT - majority is not the rule of law, right is the rule of law.

This assumes that the issue has to do with rights and I defiantly addressed that.

Taking Away Rights --- This particular argument is laughable and claims that providing homosexuals the ability to obtain a civil marriage take away rights from heterosexuals. That is just the most bass-ackwards argument on the table and frankly doesn't warrant a rebuttal (a chuckle perhaps), nonetheless I'll address it. Majorities should not be allowed to impose upon minorities. Equality is measured by equality, not by majority. FALSE ARGUMENT - heterosexuals do not lose rights when homosexuals obtain the right to marry.

Same as above.

Slippery Slope --- This argument pushes the notion that if we allow same sex marriage, other things will soon follow that will undermine society. This argument is closely related to the false argument of traditional marriage, but pushes the envelope in that false assertion by posing the slippery slope fallacy, the notion that if you allow one thing, other things will soon follow (such as polygamy). FALSE ARGUMENT - there is nothing that follows equality for all Man. Polygamy is a different argument and should be addressed as a different argument, particularly because the primary reason for disallowing same sex marriage is hatred or hostility to homosexuality. Such is not the case with polygamy and, as such, should be argued separate from this argument (while there are some similarities in the argument of polygamy, there are some substantial and glaring differences and thus it is disingenuous to group same-sex marriage with polygamy, particularly when the argument isn't about traditional marriage and is instead about equal "legal" rights for homosexuals).

Saying something is a with out any logic to back it up, and yes I did refer to this as a smokescreen when Vic brought it up.

Not Important --- This argument claims same sex marriage is not important, that there are far more important things to concern ourselves over. Well gee, if you were denied the ability to marry the person you love, I'm sure you would find it damn important. In the context of equality, it is important. In the context of honoring the Constitution (of any country), it is important. In your own life, because you're not gay, not important. If it was about women's rights, and you're a guy, not important. Black's rights, and you're White, not important. If your neighbor is taken to a concentration camp, not important to you. FALSE PERSPECTIVE - just because it's not important to you, doesn't make it right to ignore, and particularly not right to deny. Ultimately, if it's not important, then don't stand in the way. Rights denied are rights denied, and there's no reason to continue to deny equal rights merely because it's not on your personal list of priorities.

Not my argument.

Not a Homophobe --- This argument claims that a person doesn't oppose same-sex marriage because they're a homophobe, but because of other reasons. Who cares if you're a homophobe, ultimately you're denying equal rights and you're not demonstrating a logical or rational reason why to deny homosexuals from being able to marry their life-partner. FALSE ARGUMENT - this isn't about you, it's about homosexuals being denied the option to obtain a civil marriage.

See above.

Marriage instituted by God --- This argument states that God instituted marriage and therefore it is defined as between a man and a woman. However, besides there being absolutely NOTHING in the bible that defines marriage as between a man and a woman (which in itself presents evidence in contra to the claim it was instituted by God), marriages were instituted by societies and the first of societies indicated sexual orientation as irrelevant in marriage. FALSE ARGUMENT - this is a plea to authority, claiming God dictates it, yet there is no evidence to support this claim nor is it God, Allah, Buddha, Indri, Odin, or Zues that is dictating government policies or enforcing the Constitutions of Man (unless you live in a theocracy, in which case there's no friggin' Constitution, just a bunch of book thumpers cutting heads off).

Yeah remember my quoting of Genesis...

So exactly which of your arguments you vaguely directed my way as "opposition" did I not address?

 

[DeletedUser]

I didn't realize you were a religious extremist. Let's go reread my post, shall we?

"(luckily, women gained their rights despite the religious extremists, now let's see if other wrongs can be righted whilst battling the wave of idiocy imposed by extremists and their distorted interpretations of their sacred tomes)."​

The connotation was pretty clear as I was the intended target of the comment as it was a direct reply to my earlier post, so yes you called me an extremist and insinuated my beliefs were idiocy. Trying to backpedal? I don't care if that is what you think but lets keep the debate civil.

 

[DeletedUser]

so yes you called me an extremist and insinuated my beliefs were idiocy.

I stand by my earlier assertion, religious extremists do indeed pose waves of idiocy that the rest of the world must contend with. No backpedaling. However, and let this be clear, I was not calling you a religious extremist in my earlier statement. By your above assertion, you embrace the notion of being a religious extremist so as to claim being victimized by my statement. Once again, this is a victim fallacy.

I pretty sure I was clear that according to the bible marriage was instituted by God.

No supporting evidence. And guess what, the Bible is not evidence. History provides ample evidence of marriage being between people of any gender. Finally, your argument is an exegetical fallacy, taking passages from the Bible and interpreting them to suit your predisposed prejudice.

"'Gay' is not a condition or disease, it is a behavior and a life style.

It is obvious you didn't bother to check the links I provided. You provided no supporting counter-evidence and ignored all the evidence presented. This is another fallacy (one-sided fallacy).

Look Willy, choosing to remain ignorant doesn't make you right, it just leaves you ignorant and affirms your close-minded stance.

Sumdumass addressed this one as I recall he said (paraphrasing) that even heterosexuals are not always allowed to marry whom they choose.

His statement was nonsensical and without example. Regardless, it was also a logical fallacy.

This assumes that the issue has to do with rights and I defiantly addressed that.

An emotional appeal is a logical fallacy. Just because you were adamant about something doesn't make it a valid argument. Indeed, you posed another logical fallacy of similar bent when you posed your assertion repeatedly (argumentum ad nauseam).

Saying something is a with out any logic to back it up, and yes I did refer to this as a smokescreen when Vic brought it up.

That sentence made no sense whatsoever. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. As to your understanding of logic, well I think I made it quite evident that logic is not something you adhere to, let alone comprehend.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

Could i joke in your thread jakkals?If not i won't try to edit it....

Well if their was one gay person and all other humans vanished except one beautiful lady........Would he say oww sorry your wrong genre?I can't marry you?

 

[DeletedUser563]

Well I wasnt going to respond here but sure you can make a joke tug.

To bring it on topic. Besides looking at it from the perspective of a "state" wedding do you think a church should be forced by legal action to perform such weddings if it isnt considered aginst the law in a country?

 

[DeletedUser15641]

Well i am not christianity religioned jakkals so i would say no.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

I would say no, a Church should not be forced to do anything that violates what it claims to stand for as long as it is established within the faith of the church (read cannon or doctrine of worship) and isn't created as a means to escape following some law.

But a church can not be the only place a marriage can be performed. Government originally started getting involved in marriage in the first place because the churches were refusing to marry people if found them not worthy when a marriage license was required. The licenses were originally a way to control people and encourage a behavior with government stepping in to get their control too.

As far as the joke is concerned, This thread probably needs a bit of lightening up.

His statement was nonsensical and without example. Regardless, it was also a logical fallacy.

Really? I think you are once again showing you cannot understand what you are talking about. Did I not bring up polygyny? Close relatives? Do I need to draw you a picture or something? There are plenty more examples like someone who is under the legal age to marry but the relationship is valid within the legal age of consent? All of these are obvious examples before we even get into the more abstract situations of two heterosexual people of the same sex wanting to get married to game the system or because they are like family and one of them has none and it is cheaper to do things that way ( A marriage of convenience). There is the mentally ill people or people who lack the ability to give a reasoned consent to marriage (even if this impairment is the result of something after legitimate consent was given and plans for a wedding had already been made).

I mean seriously, the only thing nonsensical here is you! Listen, just because your brain stumbles when trying to follow something, it does not mean it is a logical fallacy.

I also see you are still going on about homosexual marriage being legal before biblical restrictions came into play. You have no showed any examples of that. While your comment and belief is wrong, is it automatically a logical fallacy too? I mean seriously, you brought up Nero who's marriage to his male servant had no legal standing in Roman Law outside of Nero being an emperor and able to do whatever he wanted to do. No one else at the time was capable of marrying the same sex. In fact, Roman law at the time penalized people for not being married and having children. I already brought this up and you ignored it to continue to press your incorrect views just like you do in everything else.

Anyways, If I get your entire argument on homosexual marriage being around before it was banned is it was legal because it was not illegal in civilized society therefore traditional marriage is defined however you see fit. That in and of itself is a logical fallacy when talking about a civil marriage because it says nothing to whether it was in practice or not or even permitted on a wider moral creed concerning the societies at the time. You just do not know and have presented absolutely nothing indicating you have any special insight into this. Here is something to ponder, perhaps there was no definition of marriage being between a man and a women because no one ever thought two people of the same sex would ever want to marry each other. In the time of Nero, this is especially important because marriage was all about offspring and little more. You already admitted women didn't have any rights inferred by marriage in your attempts to ridicule the religious people on this board so I think the reason for gays not wanting to marry at those times could be obvious as it created no benefit for them. And frankly, that is why they want to marry now (the vast majority of them anyways)- there are benefits they can't get to without marriage. The same benefits a single person cannot get to without being married.

 

[DeletedUser]

I mean seriously, the only thing nonsensical here is you! Listen, just because your brain stumbles when trying to follow something, it does not mean it is a logical fallacy.

This^^
Hellstrom, you seem to have trouble following logic and the debate rests mostly on pulling logic from related examples and applying it to the subject. You consistantly ignore the example and the state the logic is flawed with out any real logic to back up you assertions. Just saying something is a fallacy is not a valid argument with out the logic to backup your statement.

I stated already my beliefs are based on the bible, and without going into a different topic about if the bible is true or not, your argument that that's not logical fails. If you could prove the bible is not true, then you might have a logical counter argument. You cannot do that without going into a different topic, which you have already done and failed (misinformed statements of slavery and child killing). And than you accuse me of changing the topic!

After we had that separate debate, you still turn around and ignore what was already discussed. You then use the ploy of trying to say I am doing the same as you are, when I clearly addressed your arguments logically. Whether or not the argument satisfies you is not the issue, I did address it, and then you called me a liar, and then said you did not insult me...

 

[DeletedUser]

If you need to use Jesus in your arguments then please be careful. I'm sure he wouldn't like much of this discussion. He was always very clear about his purposes and what he wanted his people to do. Very simple really. He spent his time among the poor, and with the sick, the outcasts, the tax collectors/establishment crooks, thieves and prostitutes. He said take up your cross and follow him... give up your worldly possessions and concerns and live a life of giving to others and worship to God. Everything else is how people want to twist what he says because they want to call themselves his followers, but they don't really want to do what he asked them to do. Would he object to gay marriage? I'm sure he would not. He took all of the laws and reduced them to two.

1. Love the Lord
2. Love your neighbor

That's about it for the Christian religion and its input on this subject.

Sumdumass, I see what you are saying about society, and government, but really you have to remember that the people and their needs always precede any changes that come up there. Society, tradition, culture, and the laws of our governments are reflections of who we are as people in any given age. So sure society and government will have to change, but that always trails behind the innovators and the trailblazers... So looking at society today, and those that are butting up against the established is the place to find those that are leading and shaping the future. Really what we are discussing here is one of those forces. I would have to say that marriage for same sex couples is right up there.

 

[DeletedUser]

He took all of the laws and reduced them to two.
1. Love the Lord
2. Love your neighbor

This is exactly what I mean about misinformation.
Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
This^^ He was asked the greatest of the commandments not the only commandments.
Jesus is not permissive, he is forgiving. There is a big difference. If ppl are willing to repent there is forgiveness, but if not... There is a difference of practicing sin and committing sin.
Hebrews 5:9
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

 

[DeletedUser]

Really? I think you are once again showing you cannot understand what you are talking about. Did I not bring up polygyny? Close relatives? Do I need to draw you a picture or something?

Your argument is, once again, not discussing same-sex marriage, but instead attempting to argue something that is related only in the context of marriage. This is a fallacy, as I indicated, and you very well know this. If you wish to discuss polygyny, child marriage, or sibling/cousin marriage, create a new thread.

As to "two heterosexual people of the same sex wanting to get married to game the system or because they are like family and one of them has none and it is cheaper to do things that way ( A marriage of convenience)", that is legally allowed and is thus not a valid argument.

I also see you are still going on about homosexual marriage being legal before biblical restrictions came into play. You have no showed any examples of that.

Here's my big issue with debating things with you, Sum. You sit there crapping things out of your noggin' and NEVER provide any supporting evidence. On the other hand, you insist that I provide it, and I do so EVERY time. Let's face it, you're lazy and can't be bothered to research anything. Nonetheless, you now want examples to my assertions and, as I always do, here's just some of the supporting evidence:

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/32/4/343.short

The origins and roles of same-sex relations in human societies - <click here> -- reaching beyond 2000 b.c.

Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000. ISBN 1894663632 / 978-1894663632

Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Reed Business Information, Inc.. ISBN 0520078691.​

The Theodosian Code of 342 A.D., instituted by Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, ended same-sex marriage in the Roman Empire <click here>. If you wish to dismiss Emperor Nero (who in fact married within the laws of Ancient Rome), claiming emperors can do whatever they want regardless of right or wrong, then you must accept that Constantius II and Constans likewise fall into that category, making the Theodosian Code no less valid for denying homosexuality and, therein, same-sex marriage.

No one else at the time was capable of marrying the same sex (in Ancient Rome).

This is patently false, as evidenced by the reports and studies presented above.

You consistantly ignore the example and the state the logic is flawed with out any real logic to back up you assertions. Just saying something is a fallacy is not a valid argument with out the logic to backup your statement.

That's the extent of your rebuttal. Your logical fallacies are at the core of your misinterpretations and/or deceptive arguments.

I stated already my beliefs are based on the bible, and without going into a different topic about if the bible is true or not, your argument that that's not logical fails.

The Bible, as stated multiple times, is not a valid reference. Regardless, I was courteous enough to demonstrate to you that the Bible, the New Testament, does not address same-sex marriage. In the posing of right and wrong, the Old Testament insists on killing homosexuals, liars, obstinate children, cheating wives, atheists, etc, while the New Testament insists on turning the other cheek, not judging, not imposing, and instead respecting God as the sole judge.

As this argument is about allowing or disallowing gay marriage, even if it is against your belief to respect homosexuality, it also states a hands-off policy. Therefore, in the argument of should gay marriages be allowed, the Judaic & Muslim response would be, "kill them all," while the Christian response should be, "that is for God to decide."

Thus, when you say, "no, it should not be allowed," you are in fact not posing a Christian tenet and instead allowing your prejudice to intercede when you impose judgement.