Texas is... progressive?Follow

Yes, it is a sin. But so is hating someone in your heart:



Just as a note, "raca" means vain or empty-headed; "fool" in Jesus' time referred not to what we think today, it was a judgment on one's moral and spiritual condition.

So this is two-fold. Jesus told us that just to think angrily about someone else - enough to do God's job (danger Will Robinson) and judge their place in God's plan - is subject to hell themselves.

So, is homosexuality a sin? Yes. But is it also a sin to cast judgment on them? Jesus was very clear: yes. And in God's eyes, sin is sin, it is all punishable with the same sentence: banishment from God.

Fortunately, if you place your faith in Jesus, you are spared this, homosexual and murderer (of the heart or literal murder) alike.

And this is what I dont get from most of the Christian conservatives. They will agree, sin is sin is sin, and typically, they will half-heartedly agree that they themselves are sinners.

But homosexuals send them into a frenzy. Homosexuality is a sin, just as your hatred for them is a sin. And guess what? Homosexuality can be excused if you place your faith in Jesus - even if you never go straight - just as your hated of homosexuals can be excused if you place your faith in Jesus, even if you never stop hating them.

This constant topic by Christian conservatives only serves to group sin into a few small categories - categories most of them can easily avoid - while at the same time allowing them to distance themselves from their own sin they choose not to avoid. Its a dangerous situation.

All the while, this topic drives people from God, because now people (gays) feel they are not welcome in Christianity, and people on the fence about Christianity see this hatred and want nothing to do with it - and do not turn to God.

Wake up, Christian conservatives. Homosexuality - even if not given up - is forgivable by Jesus. I dont know if driving people from God - by concentrating on this topic and not realizing you are JUST as sinful - is.

Lesbian marriage should be legal.

Anyway, a lot of the problem with homosexual men and STDs lies not in the fact that they are dirty heathens, but men are in the position (har har) to be both recipients and transmitters of disease: you can put it in his butt or you can have him put it in your butt. In a heterosexual relationship, you're generally going to be only in one of the roles most of the time, which limits disease transfer. It's not intrinsically dirty.

In short: boys r gross

Edited, Oct 6th 2009 12:18pm by Sweetums

I think that the tissues inside are a lot more fragile, and so you'll be breaking more of the surface capillaries, and so transmission of disease is highly increased due to that.

However if neither partner has any diseases then the chance of infection is way way lower then a hetero with a disease. That's really why it's a horrible argument.

Sadly, I was only talking about the snippets you quoted.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I have grown despised towards much organized religions for this and many other obvious hypocrisies. I can't believe in their god if their god is going to be a bigot, plain and simple. I'd like to believe that god loves.. you know.. everyone? What makes it immoral behavior just because one silly passage in the bible says so.

And the STD thing is silly. Allowing them to marry does.. what towards STD's? Maybe allowing committed relationships would actually bring the amount of cases down.

Edit:

With enough heads banging against it we'd like to believe we'd make some cracks. Of course some of the walls here happen to be stainless steel.

Edited, Oct 6th 2009 1:41pm by Draxyle

Also, more riddled with venereal diseases.

In during Obvious Image:

It's not just our incomes that are bigger. Truefax.

Why does everyone keep bringing up this STD thing?

I never said it would eliminate orphanages. I fact, I specifically stated that we would not be able to eliminate them. I only said that it would reduce the number of children in them (and foster homes, etc). Which is absolutely true.

If we're looking for something "obvious", it's pretty obvious that children of women who were married when the child was born are less likely to end up in an orphanage or foster home. There's twice as many chances that someone will be able to take care of the child if something happens to the mother if there is a father on record. That's just the improvement created by the fact that there's automatically a father listed on the birth certificate. When we add in the increased likelihood of a more stable home environment in the first place, the odds get better for the child.



That's because over the last half century we've begun putting disincentives into the system which make the choice of not marrying easier for women. Ironically, it's been the feminist movement which has done this, effectively replacing imprisonment to a husband with imprisonment to the state while reducing the economic status of women with children over the same period of time. It's been at best a faustian deal for women IMO...



Yup. Kinda part of the problem too. You're arguing the slippery slope. Well... We already made it a bit more economically viable to not get married but have children anyway, so why not just continue the trend?

I'm quite certain that if you got into a time machine back to when individual dependent deductions were first introduced into our tax code, you'll find a bunch of conservatives warning us that if we do this, it'll encourage people not to get married, and "some day someone will say that we don't need marriage to do this anymore".

Yeah. Slippery slope indeed!



I didn't say marriage is there to produce any children. My argument rests on the assumption that children are going to happen whether people enter into stable socio-economic relationships or not. A socially recognized status, complete with economic advantages, provides an incentive for more couples to enter into said stable relationships. Period. It's not about encouraging production of children, it's about encouraging people to enter into those relationships so that if/when children come along, as many as possible will be boons to society instead of burdens.


It's frightening how many times I've repeated this very very clear and simple argument, and how many times it's misstated back to me. It's like there's a mental block out there that prevents most people from understanding this. I don't think it's that complicated. We create incentives all the time. It's a well understood concept. If you reward people for doing X, they'll do X more often than they would otherwise. If you reward people for marrying, they'll marry more often than they would otherwise. The only bit you have to even think about is *why* we create incentives for people to marry in the first place. And the thought experiment I created earlier should make that clear.

How do you know that? It's not working "perfectly", but I'm talking about a relative thing. If we punish shoplifting heavily under the theory that this will deter shoplifting, but then we remove the security cameras in the store, lay off our security guards, and put the prime theft items right near the door, would you argue that since shoplifting has been on the rise that the heavy penalties aren't working so we should just eliminate them too?




I never said that. My argument is specific to whom we should apply incentives to marry (ie: marriage benefits). That's it. If someone chooses to artificially inseminate themselves, that's their choice. If someone chooses to adopt, that's their choice. I'm looking at the volume of births which will occur society-wide because people choose to have sex.



It's funny how those who are working really hard to change the times keep saying that as though it justifies what they are doing.



Ok. Why are there incentives to marry then? Did you bother to think about the thought experiment? Would there be incentives if there was no connection between parents and children? I don't think so.


And no. Xsarus is wrong. While there is value to people forming stable socio-economic groups, the value and benefit to that is direct and already present for those who form them. There are already benefits to two or more people choosing to share their expenses and lives. We don't need to add additional ones. Also, as most people do, Xsarus lumps in the contractual benefits (which anyone can obtain) with the state granted benefits (which the state provides and which costs everyone else).



No. And No. Care to support this position with more than self certainty?

I've explained in great detail the position I hold and the reasons I believe it to be correct. Against that he simply insists that he's right because... well... that's just the way it is!


It's backwards logic. Most people start with a position on the gay marriage issue first and then argue against anything which opposes that position. I'm going in the other direction. I'm starting with a belief about what marriage is and why we apply it the way we do in our society, establishing a standard of application, and then seeing if gay couples fit in that standard.

I know that most of you are used to doing it the other way around, but my way is the way you're supposed to actually determine a course of action.