Why we Christians MIGHT not want to support an amendment to ban gay marriages.

May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Spark notes:

It could be a more Christ like thing to do to support a formal structure that reduces the promiscuity of those in the homosexual community, as it might well benefit our society and the individual homosexual more than an across the board condemnation of homosexual activity.

Full thing

Most all of us can agree that homosexual sex is an immoral sex-act. This gives us cause to not want the government to give a stamp of approval to that soul-destroying sex act. But what is it that we truly want to accomplish?

We want more people to come to Christ. Some of us believe that the best way to the top is to allow people to fall to the bottom and humbly submit, as the rest of us have, to the Lord. This is highly arguable. It could be that the best thing we can do is show the same love Christ showed to the poor and indigent on a societal level.

We would like our laws to reflect our values so that people can do well by following the law. Laws such as anti-drug and prostitution exist because they destroy those who do these things, but we should be willing to look at what is going on in society and support what will best help it, instead of holding onto ideological stances that offer no help.

We would like to see a reduction in the amount of immoral behavior. Laws such as anti-drug and prostitution exist because they destroy those who do these things, but we should always remember that those are the kind of people who Christ came for.

Supporting a formal structure that reduces the promiscuity of those in the homosexual community might well benefit our society and the individual homosexual, more than an across the board condemnation of homosexual activity.

We might not want to support the constitutional amendment, in an attempt to show the love of Christ to those who destroy themselves; then again we might feel that the best way to keep people from destroying themselves is to make sure the government does not endorse immoral behavior.

This is an honest difference of opinions that we should all take into account.


 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Most all of us can agree that homosexual sex is an immoral sex-act.
You lost me here with the flamebait. The rest, regardless of how brilliant, turned into "blah, blah". Oughta consider a rethinking on the first chapter of your upcoming book "Opening Statements: How to turn people on to your opinion."
 

rubix

Golden Member
Oct 16, 1999
1,302
2
0
you like spending all day thinking about gay people don't you. it brings you pleasure... sweet and supple yet oh so tender pleasure.
 

BigPoppa

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,930
0
0
Who is we? And why open your argument with a fallacy? Rhetoric: learn it, live it, love it. I'll give you a hint: the audience you're trying to convince is the atheists/agnostics, not your fellow christians.
 

Mallow

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2001
6,108
1
0
Originally posted by: BigPoppa
Who is we? And why open your argument with a fallacy? Rhetoric: learn it, live it, love it. I'll give you a hint: the audience you're trying to convince is the atheists/agnostics, not your fellow christians.
His audience as stated in his topic is "christians". We = Christians.
 

SuepaFly

Senior member
Jun 3, 2001
972
0
0
What's this we stuff? No really, someone explain... it was way to long to read.

IMHO, as a Christian, the whole point in life is to strive to be good (as defined by what is in the bible and in my heart). I will be judged when I die. So will everyone else. Thus, I have enough to worry about (myself). Immoral or not, its their lives. And heck, I could get to the gate and be told I misinterpreted something....
 

Lovepig

Senior member
Nov 27, 2000
279
0
0
Supporting a formal structure that reduces the promiscuity of those in the homosexual community might well benefit our society and the individual homosexual, more than an across the board condemnation of homosexual activity.

Plenty of hetrosexuals cheat on their spouses. Do you have ANY evidence showing that Gay Marriage (or any marrriage for that matter) will reduce sexual promiscuity? I think not, -you may go.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Who is we?
Majority of Americans.

who not just spell God? what am i missing?
the Jews didn't use vowels.

I'll give you a hint: the audience you're trying to convince is the atheists/agnostics, not your fellow christians.
Actually it is my fellow Christians.

It would be hypocritical to hide what i belive just to bring people to my side of an argument.

Plenty of hetrosexuals cheat on their spouses. Do you have ANY evidence showing that Gay Marriage (or any marrriage for that matter) will reduce sexual promiscuity? I think not, -you may go.
why else would they be trying to be married if they didn't want to be monogamous?

flames from the left, flames from the right... i must be saying something true.
 

Rob9874

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,314
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

It would be hypocritical to hide what i belive just to bring people to my side of an argument.

That's a good point. They also require that you not speak your opinion, unless it complies with the majority.
rolleye.gif
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
flames from the left, flames from the right... i must be saying something true.
Survey says? BUZZ

The presence of flames /= the presence of Truth

The presence of flames = the presence of flamebait.
 

BigPoppa

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,930
0
0
He may say "we christians", but this is most definately pointed at the non-christian crowd, don't try to kid yourself.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
flames from the left, flames from the right... i must be saying something true.
Survey says? BUZZ

The presence of flames /= the presence of Truth

The presence of flames = the presence of flamebait.

but you usually get flamed for ideas from one side or the other, or am i just outrageously moderate?

-512 posts, 1/2 way to a mega post.
 

Crypticburn

Senior member
Jul 22, 2000
363
0
0
Topic Title: Why we Homosexuals MIGHT not want to support an amendment to ban christian marriages.

Spark notes:

It could be a more Homosexual-like thing to do to support a formal structure that reduces the promiscuity of those in the christian community, as it might well benefit our society and the individual christian more than an across the board condemnation of christian activity.

Full thing

Most all of us can agree that christian sex is an immoral sex-act. This gives us cause to not want the government to give a stamp of approval to that soul-destroying sex act. But what is it that we truly want to accomplish?

We want more people to come to Homosexuality. Some of us believe that the best way to the top is to allow people to fall to the bottom and humbly submit, as the rest of us have, to the Same Sex. This is highly arguable. It could be that the best thing we can do is show the same love Homosexuals showed to the poor and indigent on a societal level.


We would like to see a reduction in the amount of immoral behavior. Laws such as anti-drug and prostitution exist because they destroy those who do these things, but we should always remember that those are the kind of people who Homosexuals came for.

Supporting a formal structure that reduces the promiscuity of those in the christian community might well benefit our society and the individual christian, more than an across the board condemnation of christian activity.

We might not want to support the constitutional amendment, in an attempt to show the love of Homosexuals to those who destroy themselves; then again we might feel that the best way to keep people from destroying themselves is to make sure the government does not endorse immoral behavior.

This is an honest difference of opinions that we should all take into account.
 

Crypticburn

Senior member
Jul 22, 2000
363
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Such is why we decide things based on the good continence of the majority.

perhaps you mean "conscience"?

The minority's rights need to be protected from the "good conscience of the majority".

Crypticburn
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: Crypticburn
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Such is why we decide things based on the good continence of the majority.

perhaps you mean "conscience"?

The minority's rights need to be protected from the "good conscience of the majority".

Crypticburn

government approved marriage isn't a right.
 

Crypticburn

Senior member
Jul 22, 2000
363
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Crypticburn
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Such is why we decide things based on the good continence of the majority.

perhaps you mean "conscience"?

The minority's rights need to be protected from the "good conscience of the majority".

Crypticburn

government approved marriage isn't a right.

I never argued such a fact. You ASSUMED I did. I was merely pointing out that the minority needs to be protected from the majority... since, "they" (majority) have been guilty of many many things that we now know are wrong. Backhandedly, I was pointing out how the fundamental assumption in your statement is wrong.

As for marriage, I personally don't think the government needs to be involved. I do not need a piece of paper from the government or religious institution to validate my commitments. But that's another topic entirely.

Crypticburn
 

Compton

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2000
2,522
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Spark notes:

It could be a more Christ like thing to do to support a formal structure that reduces the promiscuity of those in the homosexual community, as it might well benefit our society and the individual homosexual more than an across the board condemnation of homosexual activity.

Full thing

Most all of us can agree that homosexual sex is an immoral sex-act. This gives us cause to not want the government to give a stamp of approval to that soul-destroying sex act. But what is it that we truly want to accomplish?

We want more people to come to Christ. Some of us believe that the best way to the top is to allow people to fall to the bottom and humbly submit, as the rest of us have, to the Lord. This is highly arguable. It could be that the best thing we can do is show the same love Christ showed to the poor and indigent on a societal level.

We would like our laws to reflect our values so that people can do well by following the law. Laws such as anti-drug and prostitution exist because they destroy those who do these things, but we should be willing to look at what is going on in society and support what will best help it, instead of holding onto ideological stances that offer no help.

We would like to see a reduction in the amount of immoral behavior. Laws such as anti-drug and prostitution exist because they destroy those who do these things, but we should always remember that those are the kind of people who Christ came for.

Supporting a formal structure that reduces the promiscuity of those in the homosexual community might well benefit our society and the individual homosexual, more than an across the board condemnation of homosexual activity.

We might not want to support the constitutional amendment, in an attempt to show the love of Christ to those who destroy themselves; then again we might feel that the best way to keep people from destroying themselves is to make sure the government does not endorse immoral behavior.

This is an honest difference of opinions that we should all take into account.

I'm just curious, are you Catholic?