Christians need to stop attacking gays!!

Kaendar said:

I mean to be honest, nobody treats it any worse than drugs, prostitution, teen pregnancy, alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking, etc. There are just some things that people think are wrong. You may not think that but for everyone like you there is 100 that disagree. Its a fucked up world. One very rational argument against gay marriage I can think of is that it creates a standard for equal love. If marriage between a man and a woman is equal, why isnt it legal for 2 men. If gay marriage is made legal, well than the same train of thought will start popping up from every wierd corner of every basement in America. Eventually people are gonna start saying things like why cant a 14 year old marry a 29 year old? Its love and all love is equal. Eventually its gonna be at the supreme court because it wont be fair to everyone else who has alternative versions of love. We can stick to what we have now, or open up Pandoras Box.

Click to expand...

• Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact[SUP][66][/SUP]

Kaendar said:

You want rational argument? Secular?

"Civil marriage should be recognized as only the union of one man and one woman. Only the union of a man and a woman may involve the unique physical act from which children are created, and children best flourish when raised by their biological mother and father who are united in marriage. The legal institution of marriage has historically been the societal mechanism channeling men and women into permanent, exclusive sexual relationships to insure that the partners who participate in the creation of the child provide both material and personal support to the child.

There is a growing consensus in the social science literature that clearly establishes that children do best when they are raised by both biological parents who are married to each other...

Preserving the traditional institution of marriage need not eliminate any legal status for mutually supportive couples. Loving, committed relationships exist not only between same-sex couples, but also between many other individuals who are not sexually intimate. The civil institution of marriage should focus on insuring the well-being of children, but it is possible to create other legal arrangements to take care of the diversity of human relationships found in contemporary society. Creation of a reciprocal beneficiary status, like that found in Hawaii, is a viable and reasonable alternative to recognizing same-sex unions as marriage."
-Teresa Stanton

"f society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous...

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose."
-Tray Hansen

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

since debating is simply copying and pasting now...

Compared with a group of control adolescents born to heterosexual parents with similar educational and financial backgrounds, the children of lesbian couples scored better on academic and social tests and lower on measures of rule-breaking and aggression.

A previous study of same-sex parenting, based on long-term health data, also found no difference in the health of children in either group.

“This confirms what most developmental scientists have suspected,” says Stephen Russell, a sociologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “Kids growing up with same-sex parents fare just as well as other kids.”

Click to expand...

The reality is that marriage does not now, nor has it ever been a reflection of anyone's morality. At least, not in the way Christians mean the word. Instead, individuals' choices about sex and marriage have been dictated by the cultures in which they lived. There is a clear and undeniable pattern in history: with technological, environmental, or philosophical innovation comes changing expectations of sex and marriage.

To begin with, we must recognize that the "Traditional Marriage" espoused by today's Christian leaders has never existed. One man, one woman, brought together in holy love, sexually celibate until marriage, sexually monogamous for life, raising their biological children together? Any sociologist or anthropologist worth their salt would scoff at the notion. This version of marriage is a myth, pure and simple.

Christianity began with the acceptance of polygyny, else why did the author of 1 Timothy pen this verse: "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well." (1 Timothy 3:12) If nobody else was allowed to have multiple wives, why mention it at all? Clearly, non-deacons were at least sometimes allowed to own more than one wife. There's also the uncomfortable fact that it wasn't until the 1500s that the Catholic Church finally outlawed all polygamy.

The bit about ownership is very important as well. Until the middle of the 20th century in Europe and America, marriage was about men owning wives. Although the language had softened by the Suffragist Movement, the reality was that there were virtually no legal protections for wives whose husbands mistreated them, and almost no avenues for women to seek or obtain a divorce. Furthermore, the social stigma of being a divorcee was so harsh that many women chose to remain in abusive, unhappy marriages as the best of all available options.


Herein lies the crux of the matter, and the fatal flaw in the Christian viewpoint. Any time we survey history for a significant change in marriage, we find that it is preceded by the addition of a new, better choice. Until the late 19th Century, virtually all marriages were matters of practicality, arranged by families for political, social, and economic gain. The idea of love in a marriage was actively frowned upon, so much so that men were often brought up before tribunals for the "crime" of being too soft on their wives, and showing too much affection. Marriages were arrangements, and while it was hoped that couples could find a degree of appropriate affection for both each other and their place in society, love was not a part of the equation.

Click to expand...

Kaendar said:

Because when they changed the original decision in 73, alot of insiders were saying they were very "influenced" into doing that. Basically they got bullied into making that decision.

Click to expand...

Kaendar said:

Why is thread going into this? Totally de railed by the same ppl as usual. RIU is like the family that can never have fun together because the few select cousins always get drunk and fuck up something. A thread in SSP never stays on topic.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

It is pretty easy to see that he probably was a libertine of all sorts and some of the stories that were censored, concerned certain men he would spend the night with.

Remember, his main teachings started with, "You have heard that..., but now, I tell you this." He was against the church and was attempting to surplant the message of Fear, with Love. But, the best he got was an overlay, the New Test. If the old Test. had not been brought forward, the cult would have died. Peter made a name for himself by having the Roman women hang out with him, non-sexually, but to deny their husbands. Peter was a radical gay, using his warpped view of the Cult of Christ to mess with Rome. He suffered.

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

Two things.
1) You are deeply convinced that being gay is something basically wrong, unnatural. Look at your analogs: teen pregnancy through drug use/abuse. I do not share that view, and I also see your attempts to fit the square peg of the existence of gays, and a gay culture that demands moral parity, into the round hole of your certainty of their wrongness, with some distaste. I consider that an excellent example of rationalization, engaging in logical contortions to fit a concept that you insist be true into ... the rest of what we know.

I won't persist in convincing you otherwise. I take no especial pleasure in a pursuit of futility. But I will oppose what i consider a prejudiced stance that creates and propagates real personal harm.

2) The idea that allowing gays true moral parity (which is what i interpret the fuss about gay marriage to really be about - a formal acknowledgement on record that gay is allowed into the circle of Normal) is the start of a general unraveling of the soundness andor utility of the institution of marriage ... is an example of the logical fallacy known as Slippery Slope. "if we ban prayer from schools ... our grandchildren will worship Satan!" is a classic instance of this.
Despite the emotional appeal of the argument, the world tends to be a more resilient place.

From Wikipedia:

• Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact[SUP][66][/SUP]

cn

Click to expand...

Kaendar said:

Neer, you seem fair so let me ask you this. What is so wrong with people having their own personal opinion on an issue? I mean people act like its a crime to have an opinion. And as far as the links go, they are quotes with the name of the person that said them. I didnt realize links would be necessary, what do you have to look at?

Click to expand...

Kaendar said:

Neer, you seem fair so let me ask you this. What is so wrong with people having their own personal opinion on an issue? I mean people act like its a crime to have an opinion. And as far as the links go, they are quotes with the name of the person that said them. I didnt realize links would be necessary, what do you have to look at?

Click to expand...

MellowFarmer said:

It is when one forces a belief upon others..

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

When you post a link, you are no longer under the protection of personal opinion. You are participating in formal debate, which has rules. One of the rules is "provide a pedigree or genealogy for citations". This allows your interlocutors to check the soundness of the source.

i contend that in this day of the Internet, the requirement is more necessary than ever. one can find text to support any position at all, from unremarkable to plainly nutsy. Posting something from a blog, which is an interpretation/editorialization/opinionation by its nature, is useless. Posting something from a propaganda site is worse than useless. The quality of the citation has much to do with the quality of the argument. cn

<addendum> Example. On another thread you posted text that you said was from "a secular site". But you did not provide the link. Since you have a record of not being forthcoming with the source bias of your C&Ps, i asked for the link. You ignored me repeatedly and until now. This is a clear example, to me, of two things:
1) Concealment. You seem to know that the source won't stand scrutiny.
2) Contempt. There is no acceptable reason to ignore and then finesse a plain request. I notice that i have been treated thus, and it erodes my sympathy toward you.

Click to expand...

Kaendar said:

Ok ill find a link.. but can you answer my question? What is soooo wrong about me having my own personal opinion as an American and a human being?

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001607

Click to expand...

Kaendar said:

Neer, you seem fair so let me ask you this. What is so wrong with people having their own personal opinion on an issue? I mean people act like its a crime to have an opinion. And as far as the links go, they are quotes with the name of the person that said them. I didnt realize links would be necessary, what do you have to look at?

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

The question is fallacious. Did I ever say that having an opinion was wrong? You're accusing me by implication. I am fully within my rights to interpret that as hostile. cn

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

Furthermore, procon is a digest site, and they gather text from everywhere. Imagine what would befall you if you used "Reader's Digest" as a citation in a college paper.
If you want to be less sloppy (and if you want to protect yourself against the reasonable and damning charge of spin doctoring), find the source documents, with attribution. As UB has shown, the bits from procon, an ostensibly neutral site, were taken directly from sites that are not at all neutral. Don't open yourself to the charge of sneaking propaganda from a hatesite through a <cough!> back door. That won't do imo. cn

Click to expand...

Kaendar said:

Remove any implication. Now read it.

Click to expand...