NFL getting political?

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by 2Point3TSi

That's all the reason I need. If the Bible says man and a women that's the way it is.

The bible says many things that are now seen as antiquated, and would be considered oppressive, or misogynistic. So, if you're going to use "the bible says so" as justification for an argument, you'd better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is be willing to accept all of other things that would come along with it.

Furthermore, that whole "shall not lye with another man" thing was actually referring to a practice known as Pederast. The social acceptance of this changed several times through out history. At some points it was normal and accepted rite of passage, at other times it was viewed as hazing or the modern day equivalents to rape. Hence why it was not condoned by the bible.

Finally, in order to justify Christianity as a argument for this law you would need to be able to argue that Christianity is the one true correct religion. I believe in God. Key word believe, not know. I know gravity exists. I know this because I can pick up anything on my desk and drop it. I believe in a higher power, but can not prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCLwtWbhEs

[polishmafia]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I know gravity exists. I know this because I can pick up anything on my desk and drop it. I believe in a higher power, but can not prove it.

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists. Correct.

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists - because God created gravity. Can you still prove gravity exists, or is it something you can not explain?

I will keep my own thoughts to myself, but I can definitely play Devil's advocate... Oh wait, that is something that doesn't exist. Or does it, since I can play it?

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by polishmafia

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists. Correct.

Dropping something on your desk proves gravity exists - because God created gravity. Can you still prove gravity exists, or is it something you can not explain?

I will keep my own thoughts to myself, but I can definitely play Devil's advocate... Oh wait, that is something that doesn't exist. Or does it, since I can play it?

Aaah, but you're making an assumption that I don't necessarily agree with.

You're argument is that in order for gravity to exist, that God must have created it. This assumes that we know for a fact God exists. You would first need to prove the existence of God. In which case you've proven that God exists, the bible is real, a man should not lye with another man, that women should be good servants to their husbands, we shouldn't eat meat on Fridays, thqt some old white guy split an ocean with his hands, and that water can be chemically altered to make fermented grapes.

[2Point3TSi]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

The bible says many things that are now seen as antiquated, and would be considered oppressive, or misogynistic. So, if you're going to use "the bible says so" as justification for an argument, you'd better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is be willing to accept all of other things that would come along with it.

Furthermore, that whole "shall not lye with another man" thing was actually referring to a practice known as Pederast. The social acceptance of this changed several times through out history. At some points it was normal and accepted rite of passage, at other times it was viewed as hazing or the modern day equivalents to rape. Hence why it was not condoned by the bible.

Finally, in order to justify Christianity as a argument for this law you would need to be able to argue that Christianity is the one true correct religion. I believe in God. Key word believe, not know. I know gravity exists. I know this because I can pick up anything on my desk and drop it. I believe in a higher power, but can not prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCLwtWbhEs

Pederast is a completely different thing all together. At no point was it ever considered ok. Multiple times was it stated marriage is for a man and women. (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7-12; Eph 5:22-32; 1 Thess 4:4; Mal 2:14-16;Matt 5:32-33; Matt 19:4-6,9; Mark 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11). And as far as arguing that it is the one true religion I am not about arguing. I will defend my reasons for my faith but that's what makes it what it is. If there was concrete evidence then everyone would believe and there would be no reason for faith. Am I against gay marriage, yes. Am I going to mock, ridicule and persecute gays, no. I'll explain to them why it's wrong but you gotta let them make a decision. Good info though.

Furthermore if gay people want to be together there is nothing I can do about it. But don't taint the word marriage. Make it a different word or something to keep it from being associated with an actual marriage between a man and a women.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by 2Point3TSi

Furthermore if gay people want to be together there is nothing I can do about it. But don't taint the word marriage. Make it a different word or something to keep it from being associated with an actual marriage between a man and a women.

Fair enough. And because churches are private entities, I don't see anything wrong with an individual church or an entire sect preventing homosexuals from having a religious ceremony - or preventing their religious authorities from performing a marriage ceremony.

However, what I do see an issue with is preventing gay couples in a committed relationship from having the same rights that I, as a married person, have. This is more of a legal issue than it is one of spirituality and religious right/wrong. This presents problems is many different areas including; visitation rights, sharing of information, HIPPA, death (probate), parenting/custody, taxes, and many others.

And what if the word marriage were kept out of it? The idea of a civil union basically is giving gay couple a piece of paper from the state recognizing "This person gets all your shit when you die." I say that sarcastically, but again, there are many other rights that a civil union would allow to gay couples with out calling it a marriage.

[Kracka]

Please keep the religious mockery out of this thread, it's disrespectful to our religious members.

Originally Posted by Trogdor

And what if the word marriage were kept out of it? The idea of a civil union basically is giving gay couple a piece of paper from the state recognizing "This person gets all your shit when you die." I say that sarcastically, but again, there are many other rights that a civil union would allow to gay couples with out calling it a marriage.

This is what I've been saying for a few years now; allow them the same rights, but call it something other than marriage.