Sorry to burst your bubble, but you never changed my opinion on this whatsoever. Re-read all my recent posts. You along with others mis-interpreted what I meant what I said it wasn't a question of morality.

Right, so no logical reason, then.

Well, what did you mean then? I'd say it was quite plain that you said that homosexual sex is not a moral issue, and now you say it is

There is nothing illogical about my reason.

I feel like thinking that someone is being illogical just because they get some sort of belief from a religion is a bit illogical don't you?

Edit:
I would also like to point out that homosexuality pretty much goes hand in hand with fornication, unless they gay people in question get married first. So maybe then it would be ok? I don't know.
You might not think that fornication is immoral either, just something I was pondering.

Lanthanide is just stubborn and doesn't want to admit he was wrong.

Here he compares the act of "putting a ring on another's finger" to homosexuality, stating that neither are an action of morality.
"It's not a question of morality."
You then take the idea, which "surprised" you (for lack of a better term, mind you, not trying to bash) and tried to use it against the person. If you had known this all along why wasn't it an argument until it was presented?

The statement "it is not a question of [x]" literally means that the attribute is not relevant at all due to exception. As opposed to how you are perverting it to mean "so obvious that it doesn't matter"

You either were being deliberately deceiving with your wording, saying that things have nothing to do with morality and in fact implying that they "meant is I think is [sic] so obviously 'not immoral' that there is nothing to question on," or you don't have the backbone to actually admit you changed your mind when shown another position. Just straight up say it dude. You can try and twist the things you said to mean something else, but you aren't changing what you said.

No, I just stated what I meant in a way that caused confusion for other people. That doesn't change what I meant or what I thought at the time, regardless of how poorly I communicated that.

That was in reply to this by K_A:

I took Jack's statement and threw it back at him. It isn't a case of "[not being] an argument until it was presented", but a case of throwing the conclusion of Jack's statement back at him. I couldn't throw Jack's statement at him until he made it now could I?

No, it is neither of those, as I outlined above. You're free to disagree if you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Is it immoral because God declares it wrong or because it is intrinsically wrong, and God is smart/wise enough to know why? If the former, then why praise him for being good when he would receive equal praise for doing the opposite. If the latter, then can we not also know why?

And indeed, if it is the latter, then should we not reason for ourselves what is right and wrong? I fear it's far more dangerous to interpret for ourselves the words of someone, rather than tempering it with reason. Especially if these words are unverified of coming from God.

Not to butt into this discussion butSomething like this can easily be found via Google. If you really want to know the answer, then I suggest you find the answer(s) using google which would lead you here for example, instead of drawing up your own myopic conclusions. I strongly recommend the SEN theists here (KA, Jack, Tikels, etc) to hit that link up too.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 31 2011, 1:26 pm by NudeRaider. Reason: don't link to google searches. specific sites are needed fo

None of this is a reply to my argument. Nor have I drawn any conclusions in my previous post.

The entire bible is unverified of coming from God, or any deity. We know that someone wrote it. But it doesn't make it true just because it says its true. Not to mention with the level of moral errors written (slavery, misogyny, death for fictional crimes), it seems almost shocking, and I dare say frightening, for anyone to take it as a book of how to live their life.

If the only reason homosexuality is a sin is because it is worship of some false deity (which is completely absurd), then I am forced to call the accuser out on the position.

I'm wondering why you even think this is evidence of the Bible being wrong.

Slavery happened in the Bible. OMG Slavery happened in Abraham Lincolns biography, it can't be accurate.
Mysogyny happened in the Bible. OMG the Bible suggested that maybe men and women aren't the same and may or may not be better than eachother at certain things.
Death for fictional crimes? I don't even know what your talking about. The crimes are probably fictional because you made this up.
Or are you saying that people were punished for things that aren't laws now?

You basically just stated that you don't think even a small detail of the Bible could ever be accurate regardless of the evidence so why would I even try to argue against it. Hmmm? Put simply, it's against God's plan for humantiy. Wether you believe it or not doesn't matter to me.

I've already stated that legally it doesn't matter what my religious beliefs are, so yes, gay couples can have a CIVIL UNION.
But, it is against the Bible. MARRIAGE is a religious construct so it would only make sense that it should follow the rules of that belief system.

one promotes, the other condemns. I shouldn't have had to point this out to you.

You do realize that Abraham Lincoln's family owned slaves do you not?
Also I never said that either of them condoned or condemned slavery, just that they were referenced.

Sacrieur, the Bible is the basis for my morality. I find your morality to be in error, you find my morality to be in error. I find your reasoning about morality to be flawed, you find my reasoning about morality to be flawed. Picking up on any of these things doesn't bring the discussion forward in any way.

We are discussing whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to be married in law. My answer is that they should, if the state or country they reside in decides to allow it. While I personally don't think homosexuals should get married, I also think people shouldn't smoke marijuana. But I also think the smoking of and use of marijuana should be legal. Legality and goodness do not necessarily have to align.

I don't understand how you can say the Bible is the basis of your morality, Jack-o. There are things in there that you recognise are immoral. Like the killings and the sex slavery and so on. If the Bible was the basis of your morality you would surely believe those things to be moral. You must be getting your morality from another source, and then using it to critique the passages of the Bible you find abhorrent, and praising the passages you find admirable.

I hope not to diverge too far from the topic, but seeing as how the question of morality has arisen I think a small foray into the nature of morality is important. What exactly is the source of morality, being the question indirectly posed by Oh_Man? It's a difficult question to answer. Is there really some transcendental, inherent property of the universe that is morality, that we can discover like we discover mathematics, or is morality simply something mankind has made up to get by? For example, today we generally agree that smashing a disfigured newborn child's head on a rock is an immoral act, but go back in time to a place like Sparta and such a thing might be considered perfectly moral, and even righteous or good. People in the middle east cleary don't believe its immoral to treat women like trash, but here in the west we do. My point is that there's likely not some transcendental set of rules for morality, unless you believe in God in which case he defines those rules, as Jack has brought up. If there are no transcendental set of rules, then how is that our made-up set of morality is superior to the morality of the bible in any way, or vice versa. Oh_Man, you're trashing of Jack's bible is little more than the pot calling the kettle black, by your own terms. Relating back to the topic of homosexuality, as I've said before when we examine an uncommon issue such as this we should discard the general assumptions we make in our day-to-day lives in order to examine the issue in a more critical light, and if that requires we temporarily suspend our belief in whatever morality we have chosen, whether it be some secular or religious standard, we should do so in order to facilitate the discussion here and not continuously devolve into some fight over a different topic.

Your argument/question:
Basically asking what does God think of homosexuality. Which my links do a pretty good job at answering at. But if you're going to tl;dr it then you either:
1) Don't care what people have to say about it.
2) Are incapable or too lazy to read well thought out and cited sources explaining one of the most talked about issues since essentially the birth of religion.

Your slippery slope-ish conclusions:
Essentially limiting all the options to these two. Again read the links I gave you.

Now if this
is what you've been trying to get at the whole time, then you've gone completely off topic as all Jack was doing was simply stating that he believes God says homosexuality is wrong the Bible. You can call it illogical (as Lanthanide has) or believe it's stupid but if you're now going to question the infallibility of the Bible/God's Word then that discussion does not belong in this thread.

I would pick this post apart but for the sake of keeping this thread on topic I will politely refrain from doing so.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 31 2011, 12:05 am by MillenniumArmy.

Are we arguing "how do you determine if an action is moral" now? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the discussion is this:

The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong (whether you believe in the Bible's meaning or not, this is what it says).
However, not everyone uses the Bible's definitions of right and wrong.
So, the government should not take away the right (or "not grant the right") to a marriage between two people if they are of the same gender.
(Though others say that America should be have more religious and family values and that the Bible's morality should be imposed on non-Christians living in America.)

Also,

It seems I was unable to get my point across. I'll use more down to Earth writing.

---

Is this morality based on divine command theory, or isn't it?

Divine command theory carries its own massive problems. It's far from being anywhere close to any reasonable form of moral directive.

If it isn't (which is the only reasonable conclusion), it means that things are not right just because God says they are. They're right because they have a basis behind them. This basis, I argue, is perfectly understandable by humans and our rational minds. I argue further that any moral framework which cannot supply a sufficient basis or cannot stand up to reason is invalid and unacceptable.

I attacked the bible for its veracity. There is no evidence to support that it is true. If I could, I would put a [citation needed] after every verse. It doesn't verify that it's true. Let's establish some things with logic. The bible makes some very physical claims, all verifiable by science. A global flood, the beginning of man, a tale of prophets, and so on. Yet it also claims that it is true. I can write that the moon is made of cheese on a piece of paper, and write next to it (don't worry, it's true!) and it won't make it any more true.

Even if you could verify that parts of the bible were correct (the tower of Babylon did exist, for example), it doesn't verify the whole thing. Each claim the bible makes MUST be backed with evidence. If it is not, then it isn't worth the paper its printed on. And despite many efforts to prove parts of the bible correct, it more than often wrong.

OR perhaps I should use a common argument. The Torah, Koran, Śruti and Smriti-- they're all holy texts that claim to hold the secret to morality. And while there are parallels, there are far more differences. Each claims to be correct, often in the same way. Care to tell me which is correct? Don't tell me that God told you so or that prayer works because I can get a Muslim, Jew, or Hindu to tell me the exact same thing with all of the fervor and belief of a born-again Christian.

--

So the claim that homosexuality is bad because it's in the bible? Irrelevant. Even if the bible were correct, and many things were proven correct. There is no telling which unverified parts may have been fabricated or embellished. Accepting a claim without proper evidence or reason is an intellectual crime that only destroys one's own ability to think and reason.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 31 2011, 9:50 am by Sacrieur.

It's hardly off-topic. You are using the Bible as your argument against same sex rights - so it seems perfectly natural for the discussion to move toward examining why the Bible is a logical reason to deny homosexuals basic rights.

And Vrael, what do you mean 'trashing' the Bible? Read my post again where did I ever 'trash' it? I mean sure, everyone here by now probably knows that I think the Bible is trash, but I certainly didn't trash it in my post...

I find the bible to be entirely relevant. Jack said he believes homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible. He's not the only one, a large number of Christians believe the same thing. The Christian church I was raised in taught that homosexuality was caused by demonic possession. And they still support their view.

I don't think the discussion is going to go anywhere unless we address the bible.

Except the topic is about the legality of homosexual marriage, not homosexuality, or the veracity of the Bible, or moral basis, or civil rights. These are all totally different topics that deserve their own topic; if you wish to discuss them you should start a new topic to do so in.

Actually, if you read what I said, I am not arguing against same sex rights, or rather, the legality of homosexual marriage. In fact, I'm arguing FOR it.