The natural law being referred to is that only male and female can reproduce and bring forth life.... Homosexuality is inherently and obviously in defiance of that law.... You clearly have a grave misunderstanding of the term 'natural law.' It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Well, I know what Bible-humpers mean when they use it, but you are the one with a grave misunderstanding. NOTHING can violate natural law. It is impossible. If the laws of nature do not permit something to occur, then that thing cannot occur. I was actually being facetious when I mentioned frozen dinners, microwaves, reading glasses, etc., because they are all natural or they would not exist. Nuclear weapons are in perfect harmony with natural law. If the laws of nature did not permit them to exist or to function, then they would not. The fact that they do, makes them compliant with natural law. Same thing with homosexuals and homosexual behavior. Now if you think "natural law" says sex is only for procreation, then why are all the anti-gay forces ignoring the issue of people who get married with no intention of having children? Or elderly folks who get married without the ability to procreate? It's ridiculous. There is no law, natural or otherwise, that states you can't commit yourselves to one another for life if you aren't able, or intending, to have children. THAT in and of itself is unnatural and an insult to the very notion of Liberty.
Your presumptions about the Bible (which I assume is what you're referring to) are erroneous... What's more, you base your ideas of it on some unknown moral order in order to say the laws of the Bible are immoral in some way. For the record, however, the Bible does not condone slavery. That is the most drummed up piece of literary crap that has been brought up simply so the non-believers can feel justified in the face of people who dare to question their ideas on morality. Then you go on to tell me that, because you have arbitrarily decided the words "bloody animal sacrifice" should strike us as something evil, or against natural law or whatever law you hold yourself to, that we should all be against that, too. Simply laughable. This goes for the rest of the ignorant drivel that you posted. Don't bother fact-checking. Just post your biased stories about how evil the Bible is according to the arbitrary morality you have decided is right...
Actually your presumptions are the ones that are laughable. I spent the first 18 years of my life being force-fed the nonsense you call the Word of God, and I am quite familiar with it. I'll tell you what my idea of morality is. It's the golden rule. Everything else is covered under that, according to Jesus. Also, you are assuming I'm a "non-believer," which I am not. I believe in a creative, omnipresent consciousness underlying the fabric of the Universe; I simply don't believe Biblical mythology because it is just that. Mythology.
Since you seem to be such an expert on the Bible, please tell me, when did Jesus say homosexuality is a sin? (Hint: He didn't.) Jesus--God Incarnate according to your mythology -- NEVER SAID ONE WORD about homosexuality. Pretty big omission for something that's supposedly this huge abomination, don't you think? He certainly talked about a lot of things, including things involving sex (i.e. adultery), and yet in the thirty-some years he walked the earth, he didn't take thirty seconds to utter a measly half sentence about this huge evil thing. You know what that tells me? It means he didn't give a damn about it. Pun intended.
Regarding slavery, yes the Bible does endorse it. See Genesis chapter 16, which by the way also clearly refutes the "one man, one woman" model that was supposedly since the beginning of time. When the Angel of the Lord appeared to the female slave Hagar--whom Abraham had raped in order to have children since his wife Sarai was infertile--and the Angel told the distraught Hagar to return to her master and submit, explain to me how that is not an endorsement of slavery?
Who's waging war? I retain the right to have my objections to homosexuality without forcing my beliefs on anyone. I never implied that I would harrass anyone who was homosexual simply for that fact, be it via government or my own actions.
If that's true, and you are not trying to change laws that limit other people's lives, then good for you. I'm not suggesting everyone should believe the same way I do, either. I'm just saying keep your grubby mitts off the law.
If people want to ignore the instructions in the Bible that we need to publicly stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and stone adulterers to death (Leviticus 20:10), and eating shrimp is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), along with wearing two blended fibers (cotton/polyester, anyone? That's Leviticus 19:19), and you want to pick and choose, and say "The Bible says homosexuality is unnatural and immoral" while ignoring all these other Biblical mandates of morality and behavior, that's fine. I support your freedom to believe whatever you want, no matter how idiotic, and you can pick and choose the verses that suit you--although I will certainly exercise my freedom of speech and point out how inconsistent and hypocritical that approach is. If you are going to pick and choose verses and ignore some, but keep some others, then why not focus on the words and teachings of Christ? Seems to me if the goal is to be a follower of Christ, that would be the most logical way to go. Just my opinion. Of course that would be a problem, because (sorry to be redundant, but) Jesus never spoke one word about homosexuality.
As for "Who's waging war?" You've got to be kidding me. Anyone and everyone who attempts to make laws claiming some monopoly on a word (marriage) and trying to restrict some people from being allowed to enter into a voluntary association in order to enjoy the same legal and tax benefits that others are granted, is waging war. To change laws for no other reason than because some ancient book says so, well I'm sorry but that violates the equal protection clause of our Constitution, and it also violates people's freedom to adopt whatever morality they want to. As long as someone is not hurting anyone else, and they're not violating anyone else's freedom, their morality is up to them to decide, not anyone else. That's Liberty. If you want to live in a theocracy, I suggest you move to Iran.
Also, why make it an issue about marriage? The only reason we argue back and forth about 'gay marriage' is because the general public, including a great many on this forum, have fallen for the misconception that "marriage" and "government authorized marriage license" are one and the same. The moral argument on marriage goes much deeper than control. After all, there is absolutely no reason for a gay couple to even want to get married, except for the government goodies that are handed out to those who declare their marriage in court and give the government a piece of the marriage pie. In essence, gays only want to marry because they want to marry the government. If the government were not involved in marriage, I simply would not care what you call two gays living together because the idea of calling two gays living together "marriage" without the government would be patently absurd... I know what Liberty is. I don't think you are quite there yet.
Well you're wrong about gays only wanting to marry for the government goodies. Many of them simply want to marry because they love each other. But I agree with you, the government should not have any hand in marriage. But that's exactly the problem--it does. So as long as the government recognizes marriage as a legal contract and confers upon married people certain financial benefits and other rights that are not available to others, then denying some people the right to get married is wrong. Until we get to a place in this republic where marriage has nothing to do with the law, I'm sorry, but your Bible cannot be the basis for laws that impact everyone. Nor the Qu'Ran, nor the Bhagavad Gita, nor anyone else's "holy" book of the "one and only truth."
If you don't want to call two married gay guys "married", then don't. Your refusal to call it what it is won't change their love for one another, or their committment, or anything. So call it whatever you want. But by the same token, you cannot tell those two people they can't call it whatever they want, and neither can the government. If you don't understand this, then you're the one who "isn't quite there yet."
My wife and I are taking a trip back East later this year to attend the wedding of our friends, two gay guys, and we couldn't be happier for them. They've been together for years and now they are getting married. Oh, no! The pandemic is spreading.... LOL
